MAXIMUM FEASIBLE vs. SELF-HELP CITY Participatory Planning and Outcomes in Inclusive Public Transport Jamie Osborne | [email protected].

MAXIMUM FEASIBLE vs. SELF-HELP CITY

Participatory Planning and Outcomes in Inclusive Public Transport

Jamie Osborne | [email protected]

ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY

I. Community OrganizingII. Advocacy PlanningIII. Participatory DesignIV. Capacity and Knowledge Building V. Consensus Building

I. COMMUNITY ORGANIZING

• Organizers help communities to solve their own problems

• Recognize and assemble power • Adversarial and disruptive • Innovative tactics = creative

empowerment• Does not shy away from conflict• Strong organizational structure

Saul Alinsky / Industrial Areas Foundation (1940)

Disability Rights Protest (1977)

Los Angeles

Philadelphia

American Public Transport Association (APTA)Protests

American’s with Disabilities Anniversary (1993)

II. ADVOCACY PLANNING

• Planners leverage their professional skills to enhance democratic action (1960s)

• More educational than adversarial roles• On the inside as well as on the outside of

municipal and regional bodies• Federal programs made resources

available to groups to hire professional planners to develop plans for those in need

Maximum Feasible Participation

• The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 promised maximum feasible participation (MFP) of the poor.

• The poor are able and perhaps better qualified to make judgments on their needs.

• The participatory process itself as a powerful lesson in self-agency and self-respect.

• MFP promising, but too vague.

Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969)

III. PARTICIPATORY DESIGN

• Group decision making by collaborations between users and experts

• Capitalize on tacit (unspoken yet understood) knowledge

• Puts great faith in the process • Process can be challenged by power

(and expertise) differences between participants

IV. KNOWLEDGE AND CAPACITY BUILDING

• Legitimizes the lived experiences and expertise of marginalized groups

• Encourages self-efficacy• Strengthens the potential of building

participants’ knowledge by addressing personal capacity:– Confidence, enthusiasm, or inherent talents.

• Especially important for PWDs– Skill levels / access to information hindered by

structural inequalities, societal attitudes, or built environment.

V. CONSENSUS BUILDING

• Advanced group deliberation, problem solving, and conflict negotiation.

• Relies heavily on a skilled neutral facilitator to develop groups of agreements – packages.

• All stakeholders are representatives from specific organizations

• Stakeholders seek unanimity, trust process• Consensus reached when overwhelming majority of

participants “Can live with” a proposal / package • How permanent and long lasting is the consensus

outside of such a controlled setting?

ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY

I. Community OrganizingII. Advocacy PlanningIII. Participatory DesignIV. Capacity and Knowledge Building V. Consensus Building

JUST PROCESS = JUST OUTCOME?

• Does an emphasis on participation provide outcomes that are equitable or just?

• Meaningful justice may only be obtainable through “Better representation,” not broader participation.

• How do community engagement techniques recognize conditions outside a stable framework of power.

• How is justice / effectiveness valued?

PRACTICING PARTICIPATION

• Multimodal Accessibility Advisory Committee (MAAC)

• Setting an Agenda• Capacity Building / Transit Literacy• Imperfect participants / information • Finding User Experts / Embodied

Auditors• Institutional stagnation – Disrupting

patterns

Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969)

MAAC ?

ENGAGING THE INSTITUTION

• Power • Institutional Hegemony • Evolving Professional Roles• Who Participates? • Rational / Skilled Participants• Resource Allocation• Shifting Participation Requirements• What Outcomes?

PARTICIPATION LIMITS

• Privilege / Valorize “The Local” / Civil Society • Subjective Observations / Informal data• Raised Expectations / Impossible

Commitments• Access to Information / Facilitation / Logistics• Shared Decision-making / Redistribute Power• Engagemement ≠ Involvement or Social

Responsibility

QUESTIONS

• Who benefits from participation? • Does larger disability community benefit?• What are the possibilities and constraints

of community engagement within this institutional structure?

• What are municipal agency’s responsibilities to empower advisory committees?

• What are expectations of participants?

MORE QUESTIONS!

• What kind of political / economic / social structure?

• What does empowerment mean?• Participation to meet what ends?• Do just / equitable outcomes

follow? • Any outcomes outside of

participation?

THANK YOU!