“How Shall We Grow?

”: A Critical Assessment of Community Visioning in Central Florida

Paper #3 for: CD505X "Community Development II" Dr. Timothy Borich

Spring 2007 Iowa State University

INTRODUCTION
If you had been watching TV in Central Florida the night of January 26, 2007, while channelsurfing during a commercial break in the Law & Order repeat, or the WWE Smackdown1, you might have come across a live television program where a panel of local leaders, men and women dressed in suits, were seated behind a table debating issues of great importance and listening to and answering well-crafted questions from audience members. The panelists talked about a “regional vision” for the future of Central Florida and how the “Chip Game” was used to gather input from community members, regular citizens like yourself. They talked about an organization called myregion.org and its role in bringing together the region’s leaders and citizens through a series of meetings held over the past year. The program moderator urged viewers to go online and cast their vote for the future of Central Florida. Your reaction to seeing this might have been, “What vote? It’s this week? Nobody asked me to play the Chip Game”, after which you turned the channel back to Smackdown to watch Batista plant Helms in a painful “spine-buster”. Whether you personally were in this scenario or not, many residents of Central Florida were. The purpose of the above illustration is to allude to a problem with a local “community visioning” project and its efforts to foster citizen participation in the visioning process. In the first section of this paper, the most salient points of the community development strategy of “community visioning” will be outlined, followed by a brief explanation of the social and policy environment of Central Florida in which a community visioning project is currently been conducted. The ways in which the project was conceived, implemented and conducted will then be examined in light of the generalized outline. While recognizing that any community development strategy must be tailored, or even developed anew, to fit the particular community in which it is applied2, the degree to which Central Florida’s particular project followed the generally agreed upon strategies for community visioning will be looked at critically. The paper will conclude with a few suggestions for how the project could have implemented and conducted the visioning process in a more inclusive and collaborative manner, one more consistent with the project’s avowed commitment to “citizen participation”.

Figure 1. (“Table 2” from Green, Haines & Halebsky, 2000, p. 2-2.)

COMMUNITY VISIONING
Green and Haines characterize the ideal “community vision” as one that “occurs through a group process that tries to arrive at a consensus about the future of place” (2002, p. 43). The theoretical crux of community visioning is that “it begins with the values of residents and the visions they have for their community”(p. 46). As such, community visioning is a radical departure from planning strategies conceived in the atmosphere of scientific rationalism that pervaded the planning field for most of the 20th century (Brooks, 2002). In particular, “strategic planning”, a frequently used paradigm in planning

endeavors today, assumes that the planning process is under the control of specialists from beginning to end (p. 90), thereby dismissing the need for any meaningful form of citizen participation. The community visioning process has been described in detail by many authors (e.g. Walzer, 1996 and Green & Haines, 2002). A guide written by Green, Haines and Halebsky and published by the University of Wisconsin Extension office will serve as the primary source about community visioning in this paper (2000). Green et al. lay out twelve steps in the process of developing and implementing a community vision in what they call the “long-term version” (see Figure 1). The process begins in Step 1 with the initiators of the process forming a committee, signaling the beginning of a community visioning process. The committee frames the process by making key decisions on the nature of the process itself, including what to call it, how to secure political and financial support, and how to define the community for which a vision will be made. Generating publicity for the process also begins in this first step, as does the search for community stakeholders from whom input into the visioning process will be sought. The importance of seeking to include a broad cross-section of the community, consisting of members of all conceivable interest groups within the community, cannot be stressed enough. Of course, seeking the participation of all community members is ideal, but this may not be practicable in larger communities, or in a metropolitan conglomerate of communities like Central Florida. The next step, the community visioning workshop, is the first of several opportunities for stakeholders to provide their input into the process. Green et al. identify to primary goals for this first round of community workshops: discussing, deciding on and drafting a vision statement, and then breaking the vision down into key areas that can be handled by separate task forces. The drafting of a vision statement is perhaps the most defining moment of a community visioning process, as it is where the community stakeholders come together and collectively decide on a “vision” for the future of the community. There are three general questions that should be answered in a vision statement: What do people want to preserve in a community? What do people want to create in a community? What do people want to change in the community? (p. 2-8)

Other important items or language to include in the statement are an emphasis on inclusiveness, mentioning specific groups of stakeholders, using positive, forward-looking language and setting a concrete time-frame for achieving the community vision. After the vision statement has been drafted, the task of forming key area committees must be done (step 3). Breaking up the highly generalized community vision into key area vision statements is important in order to facilitate the creation of “action plans” for each key area. The key area action plans are developed through a second round of community visioning workshops (step 4). The same issues addressed in organizing the initial community workshop, namely identifying and reaching out to stakeholders through appropriate publicity strategies, should be addressed again in the key area workshops. These workshops are conducted in much the same manner as the initial workshop, with the end result being a refined community vision regarding the key area that is articulated with the goals of the overall community vision. Steps 5 and 6 of the community visioning process outlined by Green et al. are about research and data collection. Existing planning documents must be located and assessed for their relevance to the new community vision. Previous attempts at creating a community consensus on particular issues or at achieving a community vision are also important to consider at this stage. Another important task is the collection of new data that will help in the formation of action plans for the key areas as well as the overall vision. Examples of data that might be relevant to study include population figures, employment rates, demographic trends and land use patterns. The purpose of gathering this data is to help develop specific action plans, however it is important not to jump straight into this part of the process yet. Step 7 involves the formation of general goals and strategies, based on the analysis of this data, which will open up the opportunity to consider all possible actions that may be taken to achieve a community’s vision. This way, preconceived ideas about what needs to be done are not hastily put into action when alternative and more appropriate strategies might come to light from the process. After the key area vision statements have been refined and general goals and strategies have been determined, a third and final community workshop should be held wherein the results of the visioning process up to that point are presented to the public and opened up to comments and criticism from attendees. This workshop represents the final formal forum within which citizen participation occurs in a

collaborative manner. For this reason, Green et al. stress the need to reach out even more to community stakeholders and to encourage those who cannot attend the workshop to send in their comments about the a published results by mail (p. 2-12). In the 21st century, the opportunity for a Internet-based community participation is particularly salient here, as online technologies like email, webforms and blogs provide a broader array of avenues for collecting community input into the visioning process. After the conclusion of the final workshop, the time for developing specific action plans (step 9) and implementing them (step 10) arrives. These steps are primarily the function of the initiators of the community visioning process, or else of elected community leaders, government planning departments or other “specialist” stakeholders who are trained to deal in the legal, technical and political intricacies of the specific action plans. In other words, this is the point at which the traditional “scientific rationalism” mode of planning takes over. Community input does come back into the picture after implementation has occurred (step 11) in the form of input into the monitoring and evaluation of the process and is results. For example, evaluation might conclude that greater community participation is needed in order to formulate a more comprehensive community vision (or a key area of that vision), thereby garnering broader community support for the process and effecting better results. Central Florida is currently involved in a community visioning process similar in structure to the generalization outlined above. At the time of writing this, the region’s final community visioning workshop is anticipated within a couple of months, after which action plans will be developed, implemented and evaluated. The next section of this paper will examine this process as it has played out in Central Florida up until this stage.

COMMUNITY VISIONING IN CENTRAL FLORIDA
Visioning programs have been a strategy in Central Florida’s community development toolbox since at least the 1980’s. The regionally-focused visioning project that is the subject of this paper began as informal conversations among concerned local leaders in 1999 (Lauten, 2007) and was officially inaugurated in 2001 as myregion.org (myregion.org, Sept. 2006). However, it was partly inspired by the failure of a previous visioning project called “Goals 2000”. Begun as “Project 2000” in 1984, its aim was “to set a blueprint for the future that both public agencies and private industry can work from” (Kilsheimer,

1985). When the year 2000 passed and the majority of the project’s goals had not been realized, plans for a new vision were already in the making. Initially conceived as a two-year plan to “transform Central Florida's stagnant landscape by diversifying the tourism-dependent economy, protecting dwindling green space and strengthening poor schools” (Maxwell, 2001), myregion.org has turned into a six-year long endeavor focused on a much broader array of community issues within the seven-county region3. The first few years of the project were marked by an appearance of stagnance and leaders were frequently asked about the purpose of the project and why no action plans had been developed (Maxwell, 2002). But in the past year, with the inclusion of the “visioning” and “urban service area” provision into the Growth Management Act, the project has gained a renewed focus. The latest round of activities of the myregion.org project, a schedule of leadership meetings, community workshops and informational meetings, and online community interaction, has been christened “How Shall We Grow?” HOW SHALL WE GROW? During the summer of 2005, the Florida legislature passed a bill4 effecting several modifications to the state's Growth Management Act. The Act, formally known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was passed in 1985 and required that all Florida counties and municipalities adopt a comprehensive plan attending to such issues as future land use and concurrency of infrastructure (Florida Department of Community Affairs, n.d.). The 2005 modifications to the Act include an optional provision in which "local governments are encouraged to develop a community vision that provides for sustainable growth, recognizes its fiscal constraints, and protects its natural resources" (Florida Statute, Sec. 163.3177(13)). A corollary goal of this visioning process is to develop an "urban service boundary" for municipalities within which future development is to be densely concentrated (Florida Statute, Sec. 163.3177(14)). The incentive for developing urban service areas through a visioning project is that when local governments want to amend their comprehensive plan regarding land use within these urban service boundaries, these amendments are exempt from state review. This exemption provides local governments with "an opportunity to expedite larger scale developments" (Apgar et al., 2005). In an emphasis on the role of citizen participation, the new provision requires that "two public meetings" and "at

least one public workshop with stakeholder groups" are made a part of the visioning process in order for the project to qualify for exemption. Shortly after this bill was passed, myregion.org began work on the How Shall We Grow? project. The sequence of events in the How Shall We Grow? community visioning process is outlined in several organizational documents archived at myregion.org’s website, as well as in radio and television interviews that are also archived online (myregion.org, 2006; WMFE, 2006). The events are divided up conceptually into four components: Leadership Engagement, Community Engagement, Communication Strategies and Technical Activities (myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 18). The desired outcomes of the process were defined as “a high-level, 50-year vision”, “a policy framework”, “data, maps and analytical tools” that can serve as a guide to other regions undertaking similar projects, and “consensus among elected officials, business and community leaders and implementing agencies” regarding the community vision (p. 18). A schedule of events was set out from the beginning of the project and was strictly adhered to, with the exception of only one minor setback5. Events were laid out in seven steps: Step 1 – Regional Kickoff Event Step 2 – Community Information Sessions Step 3 – Community Input Sessions Step 4 – Community Input Sessions: Scenario Planning Step 5 – Regional Event: Refining Scenarios Step 6 – Outreach: Selecting a Shared Vision Step 7 – Community Summit 29 March 2006 April & May 2006 May – June 2006 Aug. – Sept. 2006 13 October 2006 January – March 2007 June 2007

Work on the project components and outcomes had begun well before the first meeting was held on 29 March 2006. Several studies of the region were coordinated by myregion.org in the preceding two years, and though not specifically commissioned for the How Shall We Grow? project, they were subsequently used in the creation of the “scenarios” that were the focal point of community input for the project. One study in particular, PennDesign Central Florida, a study of growth trends in the region, was used to postulate a “trend scenario” of what Central Florida could look like in the year 2050 if current growth patterns held constant. The study was prepared by a University of Pennsylvania graduate design studio in Spring 2005 for the University of Central Florida-based Metropolitan Center for Regional Studies

(Barnett et al., 2005). Its conclusions were that by 2050, the population of Central Florida would be more than double its 2000 population (from 3.05 million to 7.2 million in 2050), and that to accommodate this increase in population an additional “1,163,573 acres of currently undeveloped land will need to be urbanized” at the cost of USD$104 billion (p. 42). In addition to data gathering, a series of educational meetings were held in January and March of 2006, referred to as the Regional Leadership Academy, the purpose of which was to educate local elected officials about the results of the PennDesign and other studies of the region6. The meetings “helped identify key elements of the policy framework for the regional vision, and created a cadre of regional leaders who will be able to support the vision as it emerges” (p. 20). The official kickoff event which followed was attended by about 325 community members and leaders who participated in “electronic polling and a facilitated discussion” (p. 21). To indicate that this was the first step in the process of obtaining community input, myregion.org labeled it “Starting the Conversation”. The next opportunity for community participation was two “Community Information Sessions” held April 27th and May 23rd in Orlando. Participation was by invitation only, however the meetings were open to the entire community (Lauten, 2006) so that, in effect, a citizen who wanted to attend had only to informally send an RSVP. Each meeting consisted of “three identical 90-minute sessions in which participants were provided an overview of the visioning process and asked to provide input on what growth issues they felt were most relevant” (myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 22). Attendance was tallied at 633 people and meeting times were spread out into breakfast, luncheon and “afternoon snack” sessions on the two weekdays. The first round of “Community Input Sessions” were held in various cities throughout the sevencounty region in the months of May and June 2006. Two meetings were conducted in each county. Part I meetings focused on what was called the “Chip Game” in which citizens were given various sized plastic chips representing urban developments of varying population. The value of the chips added up to the PennDesign study’s estimation of Central Florida’s 2050 population. The task for participants was to figure out how to place all of the chips on a table-top map of the region. As one member of myregion.org’s leadership put it, “the Chip Game was about setting aside all the technical planning knowledge and asking regular citizens to use their reason to decide what will work” (Stuart, 2007). The Mid-Project Report

emphasized the need to “gain the insight of each community through the eyes of local residents” at these sessions (myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 22). Participants were presented with information about “traditional, neotraditional, and alternative neighborhood design patterns” and “a spectrum of density development types were shown along with factual information detailing the amount of resources consumed for each type”, after which participants were encouraged to express which pattern of growth they would like to see in their communities. In total, this round of sessions drew more than 1,100 attendees (p. 22). Meetings were generally held on weekdays and lasted from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (e.g. “Residents can participate in meetings about growth”, 2006). The second opportunity for significant community input came in August and September. These “Scenario Planning” sessions were focused on examining community maps and a composite map of the region that were generated from the Chip Game and input sessions conducted in April and May. The intent was to allow citizens to reexamine their decisions, make changes and address conflicting visions within and between stakeholders (p. 22). The use of technologies such as interactive mapping software was particularly useful as it allowed participants to visualize the results of their decisions about growth. The second round of sessions were held in on weekdays in the same time slots as the original meetings (“Regional-growth chats coming up”, 2006). The final meeeting wherein community input was sought was held 13 October 2006 in Orlando. The event, titled “Refining Scenarios”, showcased the unveiling of the composite model developed by community participants at the previous community input sessions. Attendees were then asked to compare their model with PennDesign’s Trend Model and detemine “if they see a need to change” (myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 23). Also at this meeting, a set of three alternative growth scenarios were presented to participants. The scenarios, named “Green Areas”, “Centers” and “Corridors”, were developed by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (Laurien, 2007b). During the “Community-wide Outreach”, a massive public information strategy was implemented to “get the word out” about the results of the community input sessions, particularly the three alternative scenarios developed by the ECFRCP. A live television program (the generalized scenario presented in the introduction of this paper) was broadcast jointly by two local stations, one public and one commercial7 and served as the centerpiece of the publicity strategy for this part of the project. The program itself was

actually an opportunity to collect community input, wherein viewers used their cable remotes to electronically “cast their vote” for a growth scenario. But viewers were also informed that voting may take place through the internet. This online survey took place from January 26th through February 14th and was submitted by 7, 319 different “voters”. The results showed that 38% preferred the “Centers” scenario as their first choice, 31% preferred “Corridors” and 27% preferred “Green Areas”. Only 4% of respondants preferred the Trend Model over the alternative scenarios (myregion.org, 2007). The “Community Summit” is scheduled for June of this year. The focus of this part of the project is “to set the stage for policy implementation of the vision” (myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 24). At this stage, the opportunity for significant community input ends and officials, govermnet agencies and business leaders attempt to hammer out a proposal to be presented to the state government.

CRITICISM
A comparison of the structure of a community visioning process as outlined by Green et al. (2000) with the structure of the How Shall We Grow? visioning project brings to light a series of major flaws with the plan, as well as inconsistencies between certain stated desires of myregion.org about the process and the strategies they used and the outcomes they celebrated. WHO’S GRASSROOTS? Phil Laurien, director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, stated enthusiastically in an television interview about the How Shall We Grow? project, “It is not a top down project. It is grassroots” (Laurien, 2007a). Other commentators within the leadership of myregion.org have made similar statements. That the plan to initiate a community visioning process was not a “grassroots” idea of the Central Florida community is patently obvious from a cursory examination of the project’s documents. Presentations made at a Regional Leadership Forum, held in conjunction with the final community input session in October, make very clear that the project is a “top-down” initiative. Jacob Stuart, President of myregion.org as well as the Orlando Chamber of Commerce, stated that “what Central Florida needs is a vision that connects existing and future plans” (Stuart, 2006). What this comment refers to is the previously mentioned state-mandated requirement to amend local government comprehensive plans through the successful completion of a “visioning” project that identifies specific “urban service areas” within a municipality or county. Another commentator admitted that “we have to arrive at a

compromise between the things our region needs and the residents want” (Centers of Growth, 2007), tacitly recognizing that a “grassroots” vision for the future of the region might not be in the interests of all of the regions’ communities, but especially not in the interests of certain community and business leaders (e.g. companies heavily invested in suburban developments lying outside of the “urban service area”). Thus, rather than being a home-grown, “grassroots” effort to improve the quality of life across a seven-county region, How Shall We Grow? is, at least in the most immediate sense, the response of local elected officials and business leaders to a policy requirement imposed from the top-down. WHO’S DATA? Green et al. place the “data gathering” step in the community visioning process at number 6, after both the initial community visioning event that begins the process as well as after the key area visioning events. This is because the data gathering process needs to reflect the priorities of the community, as reflected in the collective vision. The fact that data gathering for How Shall We Grow? occurred well before the project was even conceived prompts the question of how relevant this data is to the community vision that was subsequently generated. The role of data gathering in this project seems to have been reversed: instead of informing stakeholders about how they can better achieve the vision they have set our for themselves, data like the PennDesign Trend Model and the ECFRPC’s alternative growth scenarios serve the purpose of framing the visioning process with theories, values and language of trained specialists. The evidence becomes the source of the community’s vision, rather than the support for it. Another example of how the community visioning process was guided by specialists’ knowledge comes from a discussion of “density” and the “Centers” growth scenario (which happened to be voted the most preferred scenario). On a television program about the project, the narrator summed-up the issue with the statement “Changing public perceptions about density won’t be easy. But density is a byproduct of growth, and it’s coming whether we want it or not” (Centers of Growth, 2007). Incorporating the view that dense urban development is inevitable for Central Florida does not leave any room for alternative points of view that may not see density as desirable future for the region’s communities. WHO’S VISION? By now, it should be clear that the genuineness of effort put into making the process truly open to community input and reflective of a “grassroots” vision is not sincere. But this is not say that

myregion.org’s leaders and organizers did not attempt to seek a broad basis of community participation from as many interest groups as possible. An all volunteer Strategic Communication Committee was established to convey the message of the project to the general public, the media and to targeted audiences (myregion.org, Sept. 2006, p. 25). They utilized a plethora of diverse media to publicize the project, including a website with multiple linkages to other sites, and electronic newsletter, a limited-circulation magazine called FirstMonday, a blog to foster discussion and debate amongst younger or tech-savvy community members, as well as television commercials aired on local TV stations and in the local bus system, and a Speaker’s Bureau that made spokespersons available for educational presentations (p. 25-26). Media contact included press releases sent to almost 110 media outlets and 200 media members, and coverage in local newspapers, television and radio news broadcasts, and editorial commentary were noted (p. 26). Notably, myregion.org also made attempts to involve groups who have historically been excluded from community decisions, including a Spanish-language Public Service Announcement, conducting a Chip Game in Spanish, reaching out to churches to increase participation from African-American communities, and conducting Chip Games in local high schools and colleges. (p. 26-27). The effectiveness of many of these strategies for increasing citizen participation have been noted elsewhere. For example, maintaining multiple web linkages between an organization’s website and other relevant websites greatly increases the organization’s visibility when search engines like Google are used (Riemer, 2003, p. 858). Likewise, airing a Public Service Announcement on the local bus system, conducting Chip Games at high schools and on college campuses, and holding community input sessions in the evenings after most people have gotten off from work are strategies that recognize the busy nature of citizens’ lives and attempt to “go to where the people are” (Francis-Brophy, 2006, p. 9). However, given the importance of this project and the effect that any policies implemented as a result of the momentum of the “consensus” built through the visioning process, much more could have been done to foster citizen participation. To begin with, while most of the community input sessions were held in the evenings to accommodate the majority of attendees, the sessions wherein final “votes” were cast, or rather where the greatest opportunity to oppose an articulated vision exists, were conducted in the morning or afternoon on weekdays in resort hotels located in one city (Orlando). The potential is therefore large that stakeholders

who work nine-to-five’s with little autonomy, who are intimidated by idea of entering an establishment like a resort hotel, or who for whatever reason cannot find transportation or the time to travel to Orlando will be excluded from these meetings. Conducting several sessions of a meeting at different locations and times of day would increase the chances that many other interested citizens would attend. myregion.org attempted to address the issue of including groups who are typically excluded, whether because of deliberate actions on the part of organizers, being overlooked by them, or because they are just uninterested or believe they have nothing to contribute to such an endeavor. However, their efforts at increasing the diversity of participation were minimal compared to what might have been accomplished with more creative strategizing. For example, Francis-Brophy suggests seeking community input from participants in a relaxed atmosphere, mentioning street parties and outdoor film festivals as examples (p. 9). In Central Florida, there are numerous arts and crafts fairs in various municipalities and counties where information booths could have been set up and staffed by volunteers (perhaps by the Speaker’s Bureau). Downtown Orlando is a busy place during most hours of the day and information booths or volunteers passing out brochures might be effective there. A medium that is commonly found in many buildings is the bulletin board. Grocery stores, government offices, bars and coffee shops, community recreation centers and other highly frequented facilities are an ideal place to post flyers advertising to people of all income levels. Additionally, Internet technology provides multiple media through which to spread the word. Blogs and electronic newsletters were used by myregion.org, but other, newer forums to consider might be the video-sharing website YouTube and networking websites like myspace. An example of how these technologies can be used to foster citizen participation is the Barack Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign profile at myspace (Barack Obama, 2007). TOKENISM AND MANIPULATION Sherry Arnstein, in her classic 1969 article A Ladder of Citizen Participation, presents a model of the levels of citizen participation that exist in the context of planning policy. The levels range through three supra-levels called “Nonparticipation”, “Tokenism” and “Citizen Power”. She developed the “ladder” typology in order to make it possible “to cut through the hyperbole” that is frequently pervades discussions of citizen participation in particular projects. As such, it is particularly relevant to the examination of citizen participation in the How Shall We Grow? project. Her “Tokenism” typology, which includes the

rubrics of “Informing” and “Consultation”, perhaps best describes myregion.org’s efforts as fostering a community visioning process. Arnstein states that the most frequent methods used in the consultation strategy are “attitude surveys, neighborhood meetings, and public hearings” and “participation is measured by how many people come to meetings…or answer a questionnaire” rather than by the inclusiveness and openness of the process itself. The project even resembled “Manipulation” (the lowest rung on the ladder), following Arnstein’s description of the strategy as one where “the officials…educated, persuaded, and advised the citizens, not the reverse”. That a 21st century community visioning project can resemble a mid20th century characterization of bad governance so closely does not reflect well on the leadership of myregion.org.

CONCLUSION
It should be noted that the author of this paper is an adamant believer in the planning theories and strategies (i.e. smart growth, density, mass transit and protection of ‘green areas’) for which the leaders of myregion.org, as well as the majority of participants in the How Shall We Grow? project, are advocating. However, the prior existence of a majority consensus on the part of citizens, elected officials and the planning profession does not legitimize the appropriation of a “community visioning” framework for the purposes of ‘manufacturing consent’ to effect a pre-determined policy objective. But the objection to this sort of activity consists of more than a moral component; there are practical considerations as well. In a recent article, Richards and Dalbey discuss the effect of a non-inclusive decision-making process on desired objectives. They state “Because of this non-inclusive process, the resulting development, if approved, can often fail to contribute to a healthy, vibrant neighborhood fabric…If the development is not approved in local elections, the developer often has to begin the design and approval process again” (2006, p. 23). The implications of this for How Shall We Grow? would be salient not only for the leadership of myregion.org, but for the communities and citizens of Central Florida as well. It would be in the best interest of both to see to it that, whatever happens with How Shall We Grow?, the idea of working through a genuine and inclusive community consensus regarding the future of Central Florida is held in esteem in the formation of subsequent strategies and community visioning projects.

ENDNOTES
1

Historical TV listings were obtained from the Entertainment Now blog at http://entertainmentnow.wordpress.com/, accessed 4 April 2007 See Honadle, 1999 and Lauber & Brown, 2006 on the importance of context in the formation and implementation of environmental policy. The arguments they put forth for environmental policy issues can be applied to broader issues of community development, including the community visioning process. Orange, Seminole, Lake, Volusia, Brevard, Polk and Osceola Counties are included in the visioning process, as are 86 municipalities. Florida Senate Bill 0360, passed 1 July 2005.

2

3

4 5

A community workshop set to take place in Polk County was rescheduled due to a hurricane warning (Hallett, 2006). Other studies utilized include the Central Florida Regional Indicators Report (2003), Naturally Central Florida (2004), the Central Florida Values Study (2005) and the Central Florida Social Capital Survey (2006). All are available for download at http://www.myregion.org. WMFE and CBS-affiliate WKMG.

6

7

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful