Keep Planning Nonpartisan
The issues, not the politics surrounding them, should take center stage.
Written By Adeleine Geitner
Before President Biden launched his “Build Back Better” campaign, residents in Greensburg, Kansas, had been making good use of the phrase for over a decade. In the aftermath of an EF5 tornado that leveled 95 percent of their small town, locals launched a recovery plan that would “put the green in Greensburg.” The town did not shoot for a return to her pre-2007 self. They set out to draw 100 percent of their energy from renewable sources, place an emphasis on water conservation, and prioritize energy efficiency in all their new buildings and infrastructure.
The town is not different from much of rural America in its political makeup—President Trump won the district handily in 2016—but residents did not consider their rebuilding efforts in partisan terms. “We tried to approach it in a practical way,” explained John Janssen, who served as Greensburg city council president in 2007. “Not tree-hugger green, but economic green. Ramming stuff down people’s throats—especially in this part of the world—doesn’t work.”

The development of cities is unavoidably contentious, but it need not—and must not—become partisan. American political parties have become a quagmire of beliefs and identities. Beyond mundane stereotypes—liberals drive Subaru Outbacks, while conservatives drive Ford pickups—significant value structures that once carried only loose and fluctuating (if any) associations with political parties are now considered sure indicators of a person’s ballot bubbling. The idea that your values around religion, family, climate, and the like are today deemed inseparable from your political party is an indicator of the harsh polarization facing the nation. But in many ways, these kinds of assumed ties have yet to grab hold of many issues in modern urbanism.
And this must continue. In urban areas, policies rooted in good urbanism—like zoning reform, sprawl mitigation, and building better biking infrastructure—split factions on the left and the right. Though some may look at liberal infighting over densification as an issue that would resolve itself if the Democratic Party took a strong stance, I’d remain wary of any such decision. The beauty of so many urban planning approaches to national problems is that they accommodate a myriad of values simultaneously. Sustainability is a complement to, not a substitute for, financial stewardship. The negative externalities of congestion are not just counted in terms of air pollution but also with regard to suburban taxpayers restricting the profitability of urban streets. In an interview with bikeability advocate Jason Slaughter, urban planner and proud conservative Chuck Marohn professes that he and Slaughter likely agree on 95 percent of solutions for building more economically resilient, more environmentally gentle, and all-around more liveable cities. Bob Dixson, current mayor of Greensburg, expressed these sentiments seamlessly. Choosing to rebuild with so-called “green” practices in mind was not about conforming to an ideology. Rather, “it was about ‘building a community back as our ancestors built for us—a community to last.’”
It is clear that citizens on both sides of the aisle can build liveable, green cities—in both environmental and economic terms. Rather than pinning blame for a region’s woes on one party, the prudent practitioner must keep their eye on the prize, seeking strong policies over seductive politics. Enter each town hall meeting believing your neighbor’s comments come from a place of love, just as you know your own do. And when a discussion becomes tense, consider not only your neighbor’s misinterpretations but also your own capacity to be wrong. There is no simple roadmap for overcoming the politics of planning disagreements, but as a firm beginning, a little grace goes a long way.
Adeleine Geitner was the Spring 2023 Duke Initiative for Urban Studies Fellow on Sprawl Repair and Nodal Development.