今天城市社会学，讨论了关于城市规划的公众参与问题。事实上，我当然是支持公众参与的呵呵，虽然当时我说了些关于公众参与的问题。

 

比如提到公众缺乏规划的意识；（规划专业人士或许也该思考一下自己的专业素质是否真的……）“公众”是各方面利益的代表，很多时候是各自对立的，而规划本身应该是协调各方利益的工具，但可能在此演变成利益的直接冲突和博弈，导致城市发展的速度过缓；对城市历史的认识不一致，比如住在福州三坊七巷里的人，尤其是年轻一代，可能希望的就是赶紧搬走，或者干脆拆掉，以摆脱老房子生活设施落后的状况，而规划又希望保留城市这段珍贵的历史，那么如何面对这样的“公众参与”可能带来的后果？

 

　“我不相信世上有比把权力放在人民手里更安全的作法。如果我们认为人民没有足够的智慧去行使这权力，解决的办法不是把权力拿走，而是开启他们。”
　 ——托马斯·杰佛逊(Thomas Jefferson)

 

　　我提出一些疑问，并不是想否定公众参与，其实更是希望它能向着更深入更有意义的方向发展，不再只是简简单单地发个调查问卷，而是希望它作为一个制度得以完善。因为我国现在的城市规划中的公共参与多属于“象征性参与”。除了少数大集团外，不管是市民还是利益集团和规划人员只有参议权，而没有决策权。随着规划项目规模的增加和级别的提高,公众参与的深度反而逐渐降低。

 

关于国外的情况，我google了一下"Public Participation, Urban Planning"，有一些结果也反映了这方面的情况：（有很多结果省略掉了，嘿嘿，引用了几个比较“负面”的看法，只是希望表明，公众参与不是万灵丹，上述的一些问题是真实存在的；另外，没有必要一提到“国外的”就认为是很好的，他们同样在面对问题。^_^　材料未经筛选，不保证严谨，最多仅作参考，呵呵）

　　Public participation in democratic society is both vital and problematic. Some public meetings are so dysfunctional that observers end up wishing someone in charge would bring an end to the chaos and misery. Sometimes extensive public input is sought in numerous forums, only to have all that input ignored.（http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_publicparticipation.html）国外一些国外，尤其英美，由于历史、民主传统等因素的影响，公众参与可能做得好些，但还有很关键的经济因素。国外的土地是私有的，受法律保护，不能随便变更，所以必须以各种法律程序来进行沟通；国内的土地是国有的。。。。

 

在一个规划论坛里(The Planning Community)有人发了下面这个贴子：

　　Some jurisdictions have community plannning initiatives that try to get the local community involved in the planning process. A county I know of in Florida has employed growth management "agents" that do outreach work which includes informing residents of development projects that may affect their neighborhood. These programs clearly go beyond the minimum requirements of state and local laws which generally require publishing notices in the paper and sometimes sending letters to neighboring properties owners (such as in the case of a variance).

　　The question this brings to mind is: what responsibility should we as planners have in dealing with public participation, or lack thereof? Is it really our responsibility to encourage public participation if the public really doesn't seem to care?（http://www.cyburbia.org/node/259）
然后，有下面一些回复：

　（1）Stimulating public participation is an affirmative responsibility. It is part of what makes planners different from architects and engineers, for example, as well as part of a realization that plan implementation normally requires at least some people to care.

　　As for jaws' comment: If you view people as passive consumers, as 'sheep' whose only influence on the world is measured by the size of their bank account, and thus the ability to consume goods and services, then there is no difference. I, however, despite a lot of recent evidence to the contrary, view people as citizens, as people who have their own responsibility to make the community work. That means those of us who are entrusted with public service have a definite responsibility to give them opportunities to exercise their citizenship.
（2）jaws wrote:
　　"How is "public participation" any better for the public than getting calls from their banks about credit card offers? Why does the public have to be involved in any way? Aren't you looking out for their interests?"

     That's the real point. Most of the people who attend these meetings, aka, "stakeholders" are gadflys, who have nothing better to do. It's their HOBBY to attend these planning charrets and get all mouthy and demanding. Most of the time their thoughts hardly reflect their community. And of those who do attend. are these people really a representative example of the community collecdtive thoughts that is the majority? And if opinin has merit, how much does it have in regards to good planning when it conflicts with our own best judgments?

　　From observing the meetings I attend, we get your NIMBY folks ,who dispite the obvious evidence that our city has to tend to the incoming of new residences and demand for housing, they will say "DOWN ZONE!" "DOWN ZONE!"

An euridite boss of mine said something interesting to me. She is of Chinese descent born in Viet Nam, who then grew up in France. She made an official visit to China to meet with the Planning Director--. I don't recall the province. When she came back she told me that there two major insights: Planning itself was more technical and efficient in mainland China in that communist China did not permit public input and therefore plans were viewed in the context of what worked for the area and how it will affect the area long range. It was very comprehenisv planning. She also said pollution was horrible because of the lack of public input.

　　It's a double edge sword. If humans weren't so self -centered and more altruist then we would get better, realistic, thoughful, and compassionate planning input from the public.

 

最后一个人提到中国的规划，认为它是double eged sword双刃剑：由于没有公众参与(therefore)，因此它高效(efficient)，考虑地区而非私利(in the context of what worked for the area)，考虑长远(and how it will affect the area long range)，但带来了严重的污染问题。