WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE RECORD. May 2, 2006: The following is the statement of Robert Levine on the state of the Comprehensive Plan Review. The remarks were made at Monday evening's Common Council meeting.

Good evening. I'm Robert Levine, representing, with my colleagues, who
will follow, the views of a considerable number of White Plains
residents affiliated for several years as the Citizens' Plan Committee
(CPC). We thank you for this opportunity to speak to you and to the
viewing audience.

(More)

This evening's discussion has been a long time in the making. We are
pleased to think, as a number of you have suggested, that the work of
our Committee– the several extensive reports you have in hand, as well
as our community outreach effort – has been instrumental in whatever
planning progress has been thus far achieved.

As far as progress and achievement... we're not there yet. White Plains
still needs a plan. It has needed a plan for a long time.  The citizens
want, and are waiting for, a clear idea of where we are and where we're
going with respect to finances, schools, downtown, neighborhood
preservation and development, traffic, transportation and parking,
community support functions, and the overall "look and feel" of our
surroundings.

What could a plan be? To be broadly useful, a plan should:

First, define and up-date the existing physical framework and related
data.The Comprehensive Plan Review Committee (CPRC) Report of February 2006
makes a start on that.

Then, a plan should identify potential areas of change, developing and
evaluating alternative implementation strategies with the assistance of
a broad-based citizen review and decision-making process. Not much
progress here, sorry to say.

CPC has identified a number of “macro” planning elements that we
believe need immediate and serious attention by our community:

Population Trends:  With the current in-migration trends likely to
continue, who and how many will we be?  What are the implications for
White Plains regarding employment opportunities, safe and legal
housing, healthcare needs, education and lifestyle patterns?

City and School District Finances:  What can be done about the decline
in the City’s assessables, and how will considerations of the School
District’s declining financial situation be factored into City policy
regarding revenues. The future of White Plains depends, in large
measure, on the public’s perception of the quality of the school
system, a system facing financial difficulty and not likely to get
better without revenue-sharing cooperation by the City.  If the revenue
picture doesn’t improve, how will expenditures –for both the City and
for the School District – be kept under better control?

Housing: How much of what type should there be? Where are the best
places for affordable housing to be situated?  How will such housing be
funded?

Healthcare: Should the City plan a more pro-active stance in assuring
availability of efficient healthcare facilities of all types? Is one
acute-care hospital all that White Plains needs? If so, is the current
location conducive to long-term growth and change?


Urban Core:  How can the downtown area be developed in ways that are
both attractive and functional? In view of the general trend to
“insularity” ––affecting work and travel patterns, buying habits,
social organization, and the overall quality of life–– what should be
the realistic range of maximum development considering such issues as
transportation/traffic/parking, infrastructure, greenspace and the
environment? Are we being realistic and sufficiently far-seeing in
considering the effect of burgeoning information and communication
technologies (e.g., sales via the internet) which may make the downtown
as we know it virtually obsolete. Where are on-site retail sales
volumes and taxes headed?


Assessed this way, the 1997 Comprehensive Plan was incomplete, lacking
thorough investigation of many of these elements. So, too, the CPRC
Report you have been given lacks nearly all of these elements. Because
the Report is so substantially a product of the City administration,
its usefulness as a guide for the future is severely limited. It is, at
most, a progress report or reference manual, serving chiefly to
document Administration accomplishments since 1997, and offering
narrowly selected suggestions for improvement. The CPRC Report isn’t a
plan. It isn’t even a very useful update of the 1997 Plan. As it
stands, the CPRC Report is a lifeless effort.

How, you may properly ask, did this happen?  Our major regret is that
the results of this effort were so heavily influenced by the City
administration and so little by our elected Council.  The meetings that
we observed (and we attended virtually all the public meetings) were
dominated by presentations by the City’s Planning Department, assisted
at times by representatives of other City agencies. Members of the
public played little or no role at these meetings, they were rarely
allowed to make comments or ask questions.  We heard few ideas or
suggestions emerging from Review Committee members; the information and
analyses provided by City personnel tended to shape the CPRC Report’s
content and conclusions.

    So, what should we do now?
    Let’s start with what we have: The CPRC report, which deals in the
main with the first step in planning, i.e., defining and up-dating the
existing physical framework and related data, should be re-worked for
clarity and completed for inclusiveness. This document should be
augmented by requiring that each City department’s annual report
summarize accomplishments within the overall plan framework, as well as
issues and problems that call for attention.

    Successive tasks, mentioned earlier, should focus on:
         • identifying potential areas of major change, (Population Trends, Housing, City and School District Finances, Healthcare, the Urban Core, and others, as appropriate) and
         • developing and evaluating alternative implementation strategies
with the assistance of a broad-based citizen review and decision-making process

    This essential comprehensive undertaking, utilizing all available
staff and citizen technical resources and expertise, with auxiliary
consultation when indicated, should be authorized, funded and monitored
by the entire elected Common Council, which bears the ultimate
responsibility for acceptance and implementation of the result.

    We repeat. White Plans needs a plan. White Plains has needed a plan
for a long time. What you’re looking at isn’t a plan. We –– all of us
–– have a lot of work to do.