For the last couple of months we’ve been wondering what kind of functionality was going to be built into Cranston’s web site to enable online feedback on the city’s comp plan. A draft of the plan made its debut on the city’s site back in early June, but a formal place to offer input has not followed.

Today, Principal Planner Jason Pezzullo clarified that the planning department will be accepting comments through the existing contact forms on the Cranston city site. The feedback will be recorded and included in the comp plan. To submit input on the plan, use one of the following forms:

Peter Lapolla, Director
Jason Pezzullo, Principal Planner

In addition to the emails, the public can comment on the plan at the weekly workshops, which will begin on July 16. To help facilitate the conversation, the workshops have been moved to the Senior Center at 1070 Cranston Street. All the meetings will start at 6 PM.

Here’s a storefront on one of Auburn’s main thoroughfares, Pontiac Avenue. This is a street-facing facade, seen by hundreds of pedestrians and motorists daily, right in the heart of the neighborhood. I guess there’s a peculiar chain-pharmacy architectural standard that precludes the use of windows, but this example seems very Cold War.

Nothing says, “Hey, come on in, we’re open!” like a 16 foot cinder block wall. Remember to show a valid passport at the magnetic security device on your way in. And by the way, you’re on closed circuit TV.

In fairness, this Monument of Welcomeness is the work of Brooks/Maxi Drug, which only recently sold their stores to Rite Aid. The former drugstore chain was a notorious zoning ordinance bully.

On the other hand, had windows actually been included in the original facade, they’d probably be plastered with neon sales flyers anyway.

The City of Cranston July 8 City Planning Commission agenda includes dates for upcoming comprehensive plan meetings:

July 16
July 23
July 30
August 6
August 13
August 20

If you’re not sipping a mojito on a beach somewhere during these dates, (first of all, apologies), you should check out the draft version of Cranston’s comprehensive plan and offer feedback at one of the workshops. Whether this precludes an online feedback forum at the city’s web site remains to be seen. I would guess that the meeting dates are an indication that we’ll be commenting on the plan “the old fashioned way.”

---

A $2.5 million land conservation bond referendum was approved for the November Ballot. Open space conservation has been popular with Rhode Island voters, and a last minute grassroots push proved enough to restore the referendum. Representatives Walsh, Malik, Naughton, Loughlin, and Gorham introduced the legislation for the referendum. Senators Sosnowski, Algiere and Blais introduced and pushed for the legislation in the Senate.

The $2.5 million, while only a fraction of what is truly needed to preserve Rhode Island’s farmlands and open space, would at least keep the state’s land conservation programs going in the short term. I’m sure this guy will be relieved.

The Rhode Island Land Trust Council urges you to thank your reps and senators for their ongoing support for land conservation and for supporting a bond referendum this fall.

The General Assembly also approved a bond request that will allow a city-wide bond referendum to appear on Cranston’s ballot.

Rhode Island’s state government officially declared open season on the environment today. An attempt to resuscitate a portion of the proposed environmental bonds was shot in a field of corn. And then made into a parking lot.

The budget amendment, by Representative Donna Walsh, would’ve restored a $5 million bond referendum to protect Rhode Island’s farmlands and open space. It also would’ve guaranteed another $5 million in federal money. The hunters who are hoping to feast on the thin carcass of the kill are going to be very disappointed. Not only is the bond made mostly of bones, its untimely death puts Rhode Island’s remaining farmlands in question.

For more about the budget bloodbath, see RI Future.

Kudos to Peter Lapolla and his staff for getting the Comprehensive Plan online. The plan is broken down by element and posted as .pdf files on the City of Cranston Web site. A feedback form is in the works.

Save Cranston’s Open Space emailed to remind everyone that critical funding for Rhode Island’s open space is at risk. This is a statewide issue.

Funding for statewide open space grants and farmland protection (which have been in place since 1985) will end if a land conservation bond is not put on the ballot this fall. In 2 minutes, you can let state legislatures know that you support continued funding of open space. When you call and ask them to support a 2008 BOND REFERENDUM for farmland and open space protection funding, your name will be added to a list of people who have called in support.

In the next three days (by Friday, June 6), Rhode Island’s House Leaders will finalize the state’s FY2009 Budget.

House Finance Committee Leaders may eliminate the governor’s proposed $5 million bond referendum for land conservation programs.

Without a 2008 Bond, state land conservation programs WILL END. These successful programs – operating since 1985 – will run out of funds after 2008.

Please make 3 calls today:

1. House Speaker Murphy 222-2466 rep-murphy@rilin.state.ri.us 2. House Majority Leader Fox 222-2447 rep-fox@rilin.state.ri.us 3. Your state Representative — Click here for phone numbers and email addresses for all representatives

Natural News reminds us that funding for open space is approaching a critical deadline.

Today, we hear from Rupert Friday, of the RI Land Trust Council. If a land conservation bond is not put on the ballot this fall, funding for the state’s farmland protection and open space grants programs – that have been effective since 1985 – will end.

Read about how you can help.

Apropost – an article or story posted on the Web at an opportune time?

In the wake of the questions surrounding how to best open Cranston’s Comprehensive Plan for public review, there was an interesting post this week on Planetizen.com about the use of blogs and social networking sites to gather input on planning policies.

I believe it’s very likely that within a few years, planning departments will be using blogs, and perhaps other social networking site options, as approaches to public input on planning policy or development applications.

Perhaps some are doing it already?

In Vancouver we’re thinking about this, but we’re not there yet. Already though, bloggers are doing some of it themselves, commenting on new policy or processes, usually based on what they’ve read in the media. It went a step further recently, as bloggers watched nightly (via the live internet feed the City provides) as over a hundred delegations made presentations, and answered questions from Council (with play-by-play commentary from the bloggers) during the seven-night special council meeting on our EcoDensity Charter and Actions second draft.

My planning colleagues in other cities no doubt have their own stories. For example, I’m told in Calgary Alberta, a very high profile application for a “famous” country nightclub, saw their relocation attempt refused earlier this year. When the application was being considered by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board in April, there were over 250 formal letters of opposition to the relocation received by the Board. At the same time, there was considerable dialogue occurring in internet forums and on Blogs.

Here’s the entire post, “Public Input by Blog”

Although local planning departments might not be utilizing blogs and forums through municipal channels, there are plenty of examples of internet-savvy citizens discussing and reviewing public policy on their own sites. Providence’s policies and development proposals are discussed on UrbanPlanet and Greater City: Providence. In Cranston, constructive public exchanges about the proposed Mulligan’s Island and other developments have occurred on Kmareka. The city’s Planning Department hopes to utilize the Web in capacity during the ongoing Comp Plan process.

Cranston’s First Comprehensive Plan Meeting – a Victim of Bad Planning?

In what seemed to be a microcosm of the general state of Cranston’s planning, the May 13th public “workshop” about the housing, natural resources and open space/recreation elements of the Comprehensive Plan lacked structure, and as a result, never truly materialized. Cranston has been operating under a plan that was adopted in 1992, but never mandated by the state. The major point of difference between the city and the state was the control and use of the 275-acre Howard Center property. So the current plan, which by law is supposed to be updated every five years, hasn’t existed in an official, state-mandated capacity for the past fifteen.

The slow start to the forum was partly due to the venue. It was difficult to view the draft of the plan (which was being projected onto the far wall behind the gated area of the council chambers), the terrible acoustics made it hard to hear the discussion, and by the third hour of the meeting, it was apparent that the chamber benches weren’t designed with comfort in mind.

There also seemed to be an overall lack of structure. The public hadn’t seen the plan to date, and therefore there was nothing to discuss. Residents used the opportunity to voice their displeasure about how the city is handling what’s left of its open space. At one point the meeting got very 1990’s hip-hop, as it erupted into an East vs. West thing – arguments were made about which side of the city should bear the brunt of the growing pressure to develop Cranston’s open space. Hopefully the results of the first workshop won’t deter the large crowd from attending the second. At the end of the session, Planning Director Peter Lapolla promised to change the format and hold the next meeting in an environment more conducive to interaction. He also noted that the draft of the Comp Plan would soon be posted on the city’s Web site, along with a place for citizens to contribute comments.

So what exactly is supposed to happen at these workshops? We know that the City Planning Commission is required by law to open this draft of the Comprehensive Plan to public forum, but how much of that input actually influences the final plan? And how much will the final Comprehensive Plan shape the decisions of what at times seems to be a wholly independent zoning board?

Incensed by the ill-conceived concrete plant and Mulligan’s Island projects, it was obvious that the majority of the workshop’s attendees had concerns about the continued development on what’s left of the open space in Cranston. Peter Lapolla and his staff are required by law to listen to the concerns of the city’s residents, but the extent to which those concerns get put into action remains to be seen.

For a succinct recap of the first meeting, including a detailed description about the state’s disagreement over Cranston’s 1992 plan, read the story written by Rachel McNally.