Remembering the Future: 

The Phoenix Futures Forum

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Phoenix Futures Forum gave participating Phoenix citizens a feeling that this was their city--that city government was their shared tool for shaping the future. It was the largest citizen-driven urban planning program in the history of the city, and perhaps in the nation. People from every race and nearly every neighborhood met face-to-face to share their concerns and ideas about the major issues affecting their lives. 

The Forum was the brainchild of young Phoenix mayor Terry Goddard. He used it to build a constituency for progressive change in a city dominated by developers and their representatives on the City Council.  When Goddard left office to run for governor, the Forum slowly died and the control of the City moved back into the hands of the development community.

Can the Forum be a blueprint for future action in an era of tremendous economic, environmental and social challenges? Democracy requires constant energy and a willingness to believe in the common sense and good intentions of our fellow citizens. The Forum was a good effort that can be considered prologue to whatever we do next. 

The Forum had a significant impact -- far greater than is generally known. It also fell short in important ways, leaving much work undone.  In looking back, we can see how to move forward.

---

In 1986, the reins of the Arizona Republic and the Phoenix Gazette passed to newspaperman Pat Murphy, who saw as a first order of business the improvement of the newspaper's community standing after the resignation of his predecessor.

In the vacuum of Valley leadership that had developed around major community issues -- sprawl, air quality, transportation, economic development, education and cultural life -- Mr. Murphy saw a useful and high-profile role for the newspaper. The Valley seemed to be drifting toward an ugly future, and no leader or group seemed to have the necessary grip on the hearts and minds of the majority of citizens. Groups with economic clout didn't have popular support, and groups with popular support didn't have power. It would have been easy to ask the newspaper's reporters and editorial writers to define the issues and the answers, but that would, in Mr. Murphy's analysis, force the newspaper into a leadership role, rather than the reporting and catalyzing role he saw as its proper mission. Instead of having the newspaper pick up the fallen flag of leadership, he wanted to encourage the community to do that for itself.

What might be most helpful, he decided, would be a strong, goading voice from the outside. He called an old acquaintance -- honored urban expert and newspaper columnist Neil Peirce -- and asked him to take careful measure of the Valley in a number of areas, "telling it like it is" in an extensive report to be published by the Arizona Republic and the Phoenix Gazette. Mr. Peirce was excited by the idea; nothing like it had been done before.

Peirce, a newspaper columnist on state, local and federal government issues and author of ''The Book of America: Inside Fifty States Today,'' also lectured nationally and was a former editor of the National Journal and the Congressional Quarterly. Most importantly, he was an outsider: he could write from a fresh vantage point, unclouded by proprietary interests. His team soon included John Stuart Hall, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University, Curtis Johnson, executive director of the Minnesota Citizens League, Christopher Gates, consultant with the National Civic League and the Center for Public-Private Cooperation at the University of Colorado in Denver.

Together, they interviewed community leaders and citizens, conducted public opinion polls and reviewed the area's vital statistics.

On the 6th and 8th of February, 1987, the Peirce Report was published in the Arizona Republic and in the Phoenix Gazette. The report was highly critical of the Valley's planning, leadership, and civic culture. The report warned that Metro Phoenix's boom would be short-lived if quality issues were not soon addressed. Valley developers and government officials, the report stated, have too much power while elected leaders have too little. Metro Phoenix needs county home rule, organized around an efficient and powerful county government, the report said. The Valley's existing school system, it concluded, is shabby and unable to turn out the well-educated workers needed in the future. Residents, especially young executives and retirees, need to step out from their isolation and create a vibrant civic and neighborhood life, giving much more generously to arts and charities. The report endorsed civic improvements such as the Rio Salado Project, but warned that developers benefiting from such projects must pay their fair share.

The hard facts about the Valley were now on the community's table, written in a clear hand by an unassailable urban expert. The Peirce Report received the full attention of the community.

The Peirce Report (actually titled, "Valley Destiny"), cited the need for large-scale civic participation:

"...a very broadly based 'goals' process--akin to the 'Goals for Dallas' program and its counterparts in many other cities--should be considered. In this process, people from all sectors--governments, businesses, philanthropies, schools and universities, neighborhoods rich and poor--come to the table to identify some long-range objectives...

"The seeds for such a movement might be planted in the largely successful Phoenix bond election committees. But that movement needs broadening.

"Goals efforts have been suggested before but never taken seriously by the Phoenix 40 or other Valley establishments. Perhaps it is time for a fresh look at participatory processes that would pull together the scores of varying interests.

"One outgrowth could be formation of a permanent Valleywide citizens group to monitor implementation of the goals. It should stay around for the long haul, providing a critical, independent look at the series of challenges likely to confront this dynamic region over the years ahead.


A half-week after the Peirce Report, Valley public officials and leaders met at the Arizona Biltmore to discuss the report. Christopher Gates, a member of the Peirce team, and a consultant with the National Civic League and the Center for Public-Private Cooperation at the University of Colorado-Denver, said the Valley needed a regional civic organization to unite the area in finding solutions and opportunities. He said the group must be non-partisan and widely inclusive. Mr. Peirce added that the development community would need to be a participant in the organization for it to succeed, even though Mr. Peirce's team reported that the public perceived developers as "Scrooges who feed off tax funds, throw their weight around and get away with it."


In the days following, the City Club and other Valley civic organizations scrambled to look anew at their charters and see if they weren't perhaps the logical candidate for this job. In the flurry, new organizations sprang into existence, such as Valley Partnership, a developers' group. Though Valley Partnership had been in the formative stages for some time, the first organizational meeting was held three days following the Peirce report in an atmosphere highly charged for action. Within two weeks, the group was staffed and operating.

Of all the groups scurrying to provide a useful role, Phoenix Together had the best timing. Its president, Charles Thompson of Arizona Public Service, had already been in the process of putting together a Valleywide town hall long before the Peirce Report hit. The event, which would try to develop ways for Valley communities to work together, was titled "Valley Growth -- United or Fragmented?" It was set for June 4-7 on neutral ground in Tucson. Coordinating the meetings would be Dr. John Stuart Hall of ASU, a member of the Peirce team. Valley mayors and leaders would attend.

Exactly a month after the Peirce Report, author and futurist Robert Theobald wrote a commentary in The Arizona Republic's Perspective section. The article was part of a series of think pieces designed to lead to an "Agenda for Arizona." In his article, Mr. Theobald stated that the Peirce Report:

"has catalyzed the concerns and frustrations which have been growing for years... We must, however, put this frustration behind us and find ways to create forums in which we can discuss the current situation with good faith and realistic hope for the future... The task before us is to invent new opportunities so people who are willing to make the effort can impact the direction we take as communities... "

The Peirce Report dominated discussion at a leadership luncheon hosted by Phoenix Together on June 10th. Attending were the Valley's mayors and 400 community leaders and officials. There seemed to be common agreement on the Valley's primary agenda: more resources to arts and social services, county home rule, transit planning, clean water and air. Mesa's Mayor Brooks said he hoped that in 10 years "editorial writers won't be breathing air through face masks and decrying the fact that nobody paid attention to Peirce's recommendations."
The man of the hour, Neil Peirce, was not present. He was across town, meeting with the Phoenix 40 (later renamed Greater Phoenix Leadership), as they struggled to find new avenues of effective action.

In the Phoenix mayor's office, the Peirce Report was received as useful ammunition for Mayor Terry Goddard in his battles to implement progressive changes.

The mayor had been elected to a second term with over 80% of the vote. He had come into office at a time when Phoenix's old guard was stepping aside to make way for district representation. The atmosphere was one of raised civic expectations. Progressive issues like mass transit, museums, historic restoration, celebrations of art, architecture and the environment were being discussed and implemented. Deals were coming together to build a new downtown retail district, museum district, theater cluster, sports complex and -- to tie them all together -- a streetscape program. Energies were rising to use the city's huge bonding capacity to make important quality of life infrastructure improvements. Hundreds of people were being appointed to dozens of new committees to move the city forward in a number of directions. While Mayor Goddard rarely had all the victories he wanted on the Council, he was naming new ad hoc committees at a furious pace, amassing hundreds of citizens to co-advocate his positions.

The Phoenix Together town hall was held as planned in Tucson in the first week of June, and participants left those meetings inspired by the story of the Citizens League of Minnesota, then a 35-year-old, 3,000 member, 140 community organization that includes Minneapolis and St. Paul. Twelve staff members of the League prepare research on community issues. The members then take positions on key issues, and the staff members pursue implementation through lobbying and other means. It was an effective blueprint. Would it work for the Valley?

A feasibility meeting was held on September 3rd in Phoenix, with Realtor Tom Fannin as chairman. Fifteen people set up committees to determine if a new organization was necessary, or whether an existing group should move ahead.

The City Club's president Bob Burnand, Jr. argued that the City Club was the appropriate organization to unite the Valley, and he met with his directors in August to revise the charter of the organization, expanding its mission Valleywide. The Phoenix City Club was seen by some, including the Phoenix mayor, as a viable candidate, but others wanted a more clearly regional organization that would take courageous stands on important issues, which had never been the role of the City Club.

Attorney David Tierney told the press, "There's kind of a numbing paralysis over all the entities here in Phoenix... Every group here is cautious about taking a position on anything for fear of offending its members."

Not all elected leaders were excited by the idea of creating a powerful citizens' league. "While I support citizen participation, I don't think an organization to look out after Valleywide interests is really necessary,'' Tempe Mayor Harry Mitchell was quoted by the press. He said he believed citizens had plenty of opportunities to express themselves by attending council meetings and serving on boards and commissions. Chandler Mayor Jerry Brooks said politicians already know what problems their communities are facing. The president of the East Valley Partnership worried aloud that creating an over-large group could be counterproductive.

If the Valley needed a little encouragement to think bigger, it got the exact opposite on the first Tuesday in November, as two out of every three Valley voters turned down the Rio Salado Project, voicing distrust of their leaders.

Because the project violated Neil Peirce's prescription that large projects require large-scale participation, clarity and fairness, the defeat was no surprise to many. Editorial writers said the defeat was deserved.

By mid-November, Tom Fannin was suggesting the formation of the Valley Citizens' League. He proposed a 10,000-member organization with dues of $10 to $200, and an annual budget of $150,000. A first meeting was set for December 1st at ASU. With steady backing from Arizona Public Service and other organizations, the League would organize and become an important voice for civic improvement in the Valley. It would keep its eye on county home rule, that most difficult and elusive of regional issues. The League's growth would not dominate the civic landscape in the way that the Citizens League of Minnesota did in its region.

While the large scale opportunities for regional planning were drifting in uncertainty, things were beginning to happen at the local level. On June 19, at a breakfast at the Doubletree Inn, Scottsdale Mayor Herb Drinkwater proposed an expansion of the city's goals program. A previous program, five years earlier, included 250 citizens working on a dozen subcommittees for a year. A list of city improvements came out of the process, most of which were implemented. ''Now is the time to take another look at our growth and see where we're headed,'' the mayor told the 100 invited residents. ''It's time to establish some goals and begin a community goal-setting process...Every good idea in this community has been citizen-initiated, every one of them,'' he said.

Peirce team members Curtis W. Johnson and John Stuart Hall spoke to the group. Mr. Johnson urged a wide-open process of participation. Otherwise, he said, "you won't get it right, and you won't get it settled, because it won't be accepted."


The Phoenix mayor's office was also buzzing. Rod Engelen, the former chief planner of the City of Minneapolis and a 23-year senior executive with the urban planning firm of Barton Aschman in Chicago, had taken early retirement to Phoenix, where he consulted with Barton Aschman and volunteered his planning expertise to the mayor's office. There, he saw the need for a much broader public constituency for quality growth issues. As the chairman of the mayor's Ad Hoc Committee on Downtown, and then as special assistant to the mayor, he helped the mayor set the stage for downtown improvements that would come into full bloom in the 1990s. And to broaden public support for good planning, Mr. Engelen began collecting information on goals programs conducted in other cities. He thought Phoenix was ready, and he got encouragement from everyone he tested the idea on, including Paul Elsner of the community college district, developer David Johns, council member Linda Nadolski, utility executive Jack Pfister, and the mayor's political advisors. He was preparing to make a recommendation to the mayor for a major community participation program, and the mayor was predisposed to accept it.

While Chris Gates of the National Civic League argued that any such process needed to be regional, Mayor Goddard had come to believe that the Valley was not ready to commit to regional planning. A program in Phoenix, if successful, could expand later to include other communities, the mayor told Mr. Gates.

By the spring of 1988, Mr. Engelen was ready to make a recommendation. He offered some language for the mayor's upcoming State of the City message to the effect that Phoenix needed to convene a large-scale goals program.

The mayor's longtime political advisor, attorney Herb Ely, founder of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest and a longtime leader of Valley progressive causes, encouraged the mayor to embrace the idea. It was, after all, a direct extension of the kind of citizen involvement that council district meetings, the ad hoc committees, the bond committees, and the still-new council districts themselves were all about. Herb Ely would be one of the several bundles of energy behind the Forum's progress over the next several years.

The mayor's State of the City report was released in the first week of May, 1988, and was well received in the press and in the community. In the address, Mayor Goddard stated:

"More and more, the citizens of Phoenix are concerned about where the community is headed -- about traffic, the future of neighborhoods, how good their children's lives will be and what to expect in their old age... Government, business, community and academic leaders must join in the widest possible discussion... Together we can decide where we are headed."

He asked for (and received) a budget appropriation of $100,000 for the process, to be matched by private donations. The process would be called the Phoenix Futures Forum. It came in the enthusiastic afterglow of a successful billion-dollar bond vote, less than a month earlier, to support civic and cultural improvements -- the largest cultural bond program in the City's history, and a national head-turner.

An editorial in the Republic was enthusiastic:

"The voters not only signaled a clear vision for the city's future, but also gave city fathers a pat on the back for having charted a course to their liking. The unqualified success of the bond election, coupled with the prospect of a relatively stable, hold-the-line budget, serves to create an atmosphere of infectious optimism. The message Goddard put on the table emphasized a continuation of those appealing populist themes that were the foundation of his administration. The suggestion of a Phoenix Futures Forum to bring together all segments of the community is an idea whose time has come."

Mr. Engelen, together with the mayor and Mr. Ely, and with regular, Saturday morning input from Council member Linda Nadolski and Community College Board Chairman Paul Elsner, began planning the details the Phoenix Futures Forum.

In mid-June, the Forum's first planning meeting, attended by over thirty leaders from business, city government and the community, was held at the Arizona Club atop the First Interstate Building. Mayor Goddard suggested that a steering committee be formed of representatives of existing civic organizations. Herb Ely would serve as chairman.

Chris Gates and Curtis Johnson were there to urge inclusion of all groups, power brokers and ordinary citizens, and representatives from the entire region. The recent Phoenix bond campaign -- led by a 200-member committee -- was cited as a model, while the Rio Salado Project was cited as a model to avoid.

A two-day Forum at the Civic Plaza was planned for autumn. The entire public would be invited.

Bonnie Bartak, the mayor's special assistant for communications, recruited public relations executives and agencies to begin a high-powered communications effort, with Linda Mac Michael of the Phillips-Ramsey agency managing the account.

Chris Gates was hired as a consultant to the project. He outlined the basic work of the project in five questions:

Where are we? Where are we going? Where do we want to go? How do we get there? What are our next steps?

Rod Engelen would manage the complex project from the mayor's office.

The $100,000 appropriation would need a private match. Half of it came in one lump from Honeywell. Expressing concern about the Peirce Report's rebuke of corporations for their lack of civic generosity, the Minneapolis-based electronics giant, already a long-time, generous donor to Valley causes and a believer in the Minnesota Citizens League, contacted the mayor's office following his speech and offered $50,000 toward organizing expenses. Other corporations and foundations followed. The Planning Committee would later bump the budget to $400,000.

From the beginning, the Forum would be absolutely linked to Terry Goddard. The first newspaper announcement of a Forum event reads: "The first public workshop under Mayor Terry Goddard's Phoenix Futures Forum project, whose aim is to develop a community consensus on the city's direction, has been scheduled for early October." This linkage would persist.

Forum I.

Forum I was held at the Civic Plaza on the first Friday and Saturday of October, 1988--the same week that Phoenix appeared at the top of the U.S. Census' list of fastest growing metro areas. Speakers included Neal Peirce, William Johnston of the Hudson Institute, William Brown, a theoretical physicist at the Hudson Institute, Carl Hodges, director of the Environmental Research Laboratory at the University of Arizona, Robert Cevero, a professor in city planning at UC Berkeley, Christopher Leinberger, a partner in a Los Angeles-based urban affairs consulting firm, and Rob Melnick, director of the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University. The speakers led workshops on topics including the environment, human needs, technology, transportation & urban form, and "paying for the future." The Phoenix Channel broadcast the event. All major news outlets covered it.

Over 600 people signed-up to attend (650 came), some complaining that the $25 fee would keep many away. Subsequent meetings would have a no meal, free attendance option.

When it became clear that the event would be crowded, the city manager's office sent a message around to city departments discouraging city employee attendance. Many department heads took this to mean that the city manager's office was urging non-cooperation with the Forum, a miscommunication that put a long-lasting chill on Forum-City staff relations.

Flip charts, masking tape, colored dots were everywhere, in systems that would be invented on the fly by Rod Engelen, Lance Decker and Ted Kraver for gathering, ranking and combining ideas.

So many subjects were covered--urban villages, sprawl, mass transportation, neighborhood quality-- and so many people had so much to say, that the event was useful primarily as a long-overdue opportunity to meet and share ideas, and to identify the hot issues for further discussion. Even after the second day, there was nothing that could be mistaken for a common focus. But, if it was a jumble, it was a joyful jumble.

The first event was a success by most counts. The Phoenix Gazette editorialized: "Goddard's brainchild, the Phoenix Futures Forum, is off to a promising start... The forum, however, cannot be a one-time, weekend operation, however energizing. The object of this exercise, remember, is to democratize and rationalize the city's future. If the citizenry doesn't shape the future, others, less selfless, more narrowly motivated, will."

The higher-profile issues from the first Forum were tackled through a series of "mini-forums" in the months following.

In mid-November, a "mini-forum" on the impact of technology was held at the Civic Plaza, followed in early December by a meeting featuring Atlanta mayor Andrew Young, who told the attendees how Atlanta's mass transit system creates new development opportunities. ValTrans, the Valley's proposed $8.4 billion rail system, was coming into focus, headed for a county-wide vote in March.

On a Saturday in late January, 1989, author and urban expert William Whyte appeared in a mini-forum at Phoenix College, followed by a workshop with architects, artists and planners to develop goals for the city's future. A list of 18 goals was developed through four workshops, including resolutions to respect the desert environment, provide more public art, and give neighborhoods a greater sense of identity. Herb Ely told the press that all these issues would have to be organized into a broad theme.

The increasingly complex task of keeping track of the issues, the people, the budgets and events fell to Futures Forum administrator, Tammy Bosse. The chief strategist for devising new ways for hundreds of participants to have their ideas posted, discussed and integrated into further discussions was Rod Engelen, with later help from City strategic planner, Lance Decker and others.

On February 3rd, 1989, the Futures Forum turned to young people for their ideas. A Forum at the Civic Plaza attracted approximately 190 high school students, who voiced strong concerns about the Valley's limited transportation modes and the future of its environment and educational system. Many expressed concern for the poor, and for the need for affordable housing. Their ideas were integrated into the main body of Forum material, and two of the young people were named to the Policy Committee. The only complaint was that they didn't have an ongoing opportunity to participate in community dialogue.

Forum II.

Forum II, was held at Phoenix College on Friday afternoon and evening, February 24th, and Saturday morning, the 25th. Half days were scheduled after a number of people at the first Forum complained that they could not take two full days away from their other responsibilities. Half days also resolved the problem of expensive lunches. A $15 lunch was available Saturday for those who wanted to stay. Otherwise, the events were free.

Futurist Robert Theobold was the featured speaker Friday, after a wrapup of ideas and information gathered at the first Forum and the mini-forums. Saturday, the main attraction was St. Paul Mayor George Latimer who spoke about the need to bring the best of small town values to big cities. ''A great city needs to move toward the future . . . but also understand the needs of the people,'' he told the meager crowd of 175. Prior to his presentation, four scenarios of possible futures for the city were dramatically enacted and used to spark ideas and discussion.

The low turnout was acceptable to regular attendees like wheelchair-accessibility activist Bill Stokes. He told a Republic reporter, "Whether there are 20, 200 or 400 people who attend these forums, we have more of an opportunity to get our views heard and our needs met here." His voice was being heard, and he had recently been appointed to a city committee to make bus stops more wheelchair accessible.

In the parking lot was a odd-looking solar-powered motorcycle. Some people worried that the Futures Forum was attracting too few "movers and shakers" and mainstream citizens, and more and more people with narrow agendas who had been shut out of the civic conversation for years.

But if the Forum was to gain political power, it would need to attract large crowds of mainstream citizens. If they wouldn't come to the Forum, the Forum would come to them. Area Forums were scheduled for all nine urban villages. One of the first was in Maryvale on April 15, perhaps not a great date to ask people to think creatively about governance issues. But they did.

While the Phoenix effort was preparing in March for a village road show to shake-off the chilly turnout at Forum II, Chris Gates was putting democracy on the road in Arizona. Under his guidance, over 100 Sedona citizens gathered at the Grand Canyon to begin a goals process for their end of the Verde Valley. Freak winter winds tore at the Canyon lodges, as participants huddled inside and challenged the forces of the status quo.

In late March, central Arizona voters rejected the Valley's big chance for light rail transit. ValTrans was pulled out from under the feet of dazed community, government and business leaders still in denial over the death of the Rio Salado Project.

Again, insufficient community participation and an unclear program was blamed (though thousands of people had participated). Symbolic of the crossed messages, the ValTrans public relations machine had distributed a poster showing elevated trains cutting through the protected Phoenix Mountain Preserve. Many neighborhoods were shocked by the secret deals surfacing just before the election that took the railway off Central Avenue and put it through historic neighborhoods. And the great majority of voters had not been sold on the idea that rails could work in the Valley's spread-out condition. They had not been educated regarding the use of the system to direct future growth and create future tax value. In a great civic non sequitur, the cost overruns on the freeway system spilled--flooded--voter distrust onto this entirely unrelated project. Once again, the dream of Valley communities working together seemed remote.

In a post-mortem opinion piece in the Republic, Terry Goddard challenged the community to keep looking for answers through large-scale citizen outreach:

"Last October, we started a new effort in Phoenix to include more people in the planning process. It's called the Futures Forum. Through the forum, citizens from throughout this city are coming together in small and large groups, and are talking about city problems and drawing up a strategic plan to deal with them. It's an open process. It could easily be expanded to deal with regional problem-solving. Alternatively, the Valley Citizens League is a broad-based volunteer organization which is ideally positioned to examine Valleywide issues."

It all seemed like bad timing: had the Forum or the Citizens League or some other outreach effort been in place several years earlier, had the mass transit and the riverfront proposals percolated up through these grass roots, the Valley might be moving into a new future. It seemed to many Valley citizens that the community was now hopelessly stuck. In addition to these defeats, the Valley's financial institutions were beginning to disintegrate in the wake of banking deregulation, changes in the real estate tax laws and out-of-state banking rules, and the fallout from an ill-conceived lending binge. The binge was undertaken as lenders attempted to diversify and fatten their loan portfolios in anticipation of being purchased by larger institutions. Instead, the loans and investments were just going bad. Giants like Western Savings and American Continental had fallen, as had many smaller institutions. Phoenix's development boom was coming unglued, perhaps as Neil Peirce had said it would--though for far different reasons.

Barron's, the previous December, published a lengthy slam of Phoenix's real estate bust, and three major cultural institutions, including the Phoenix Symphony, were in deep financial trouble as the development-oriented elite pulled back their support. A development industry executive commented that the Rolex watches and car phones were piling up in the pawn shops. The governor was being impeached, a powerful community toxin all by itself.

The civic processes continued on, though they did so in the way that a suddenly injured man tries to walk normally. The still-recent passage of the great bond program was something to remind oneself about. The little numbered lapel button from that campaign could be grasped tightly to poke oneself as a reminder that significant things could be done, and had been done. Plus, there were new things popping-up regularly now--the Festival of Lights, Phoenix Economic Growth Corporation, a new Central Avenue streetscape, the arrival of Rouse to build Arizona Center, the Herberger Theaters, the rescued Orpheum, the rescued Phoenix Union campus, Patriots' Square, the upcoming Deck Park, the approval of America West Arena, left turn arrows, and, for awhile, a Solar Oasis desert living technology expo in front of the Symphony. A temporary demonstration of the Solar Oasis was assembled in front of the Symphony by Dr. Carl Hodges team from the U of A's Environmental Research Lab to show how a little bit of water can go a long way toward creating a sense of cool.

In the chilly mists of Dr. Hodges' cool towers, or under the laminar flow fountains provided by Disney, the promise of a better, more creative Phoenix was still dreamable. And for those who didn't notice these quieter changes, there was the U.S. Grand Prix.

As the community suffered through its economic and political troubles, the Futures Forum kept up a solid stream of events. Through four weeks in April, classic community planning films and speakers were featured in Futures Forum evenings at Heritage Square, sponsored by the Phoenix Community Alliance and Valley contractors. The basic elements of good city planning were discussed by Ed Bacon of Philadelphia and other visiting architects and planners.

Through April, 1989 and into May, the outreach Forums were held all over the city: the North Mountain Village on April 13, Maryvale on April 15, Encanto-Central City on April 17, Paradise Valley on April 22, South Mountain on April 24, Alhambra on April 27, Camelback East on May 1, and Deer Valley on May 4. The grueling schedule of Forum meetings took over the lives of Rod Engelen and Tammy Bosse and many volunteers and Planning Department staffers. Each mini-forum was about three and a half hours long, and was attended by thirty to a hundred people. Presentations were made, break-out discussion groups were facilitated, village goals, concerns and aspirations were recorded as great sheets of white paper were taped across the walls.

The information from those sessions not only influenced the Futures Forum's direction, it moved the City Planning Department fully into a Futures Forum way of thinking about neighborhoods--a change in thinking that would reshape a large part of city government over the coming decade.

On April 11, just before the Forum village outreach programs began, the Phoenix Gazette took a mid-course health check of the Forum in a page one article headlined, "Futures Forum at Critical Stage:"

"Some advocates--and critics--are having doubts. They see the project attempting to work its way upstream in a community whose residents seem to be registering a loss of faith in the ability of government to do anything right...

"The lack of involvement of some city officials, including City Council members and planning commissioners, has been a sore point.

"Councilmen Howard Adams and Duane Pell say they have stayed away so they won't be accused of pushing their own agendas. Adams says, ''Why should we ram our ideas down the throat of people we have asked to give us input?'' Pell says he suspects that the recommendations that come out of the process will reflect Goddard's vision more than anyone else's.

In an Arizona Business Gazette article on April 28, Terry Goddard was asked if he would run for Governor at some point. Not against Rose Mofford, he said. But someday? He said he didn't know.

In mid-May, Phoenix found itself a finalist for the National League of Cities' All America City Award. To win would be a soothing balm on so many recent sprains and bruises. Three accomplishments were cited in the city's award application: the new neighborhood maintenance code, the massive cultural bond program, and the Futures Forum. Some of the citizens involved in those efforts went to the League meeting in Chicago. They came home with the prize. It made a difference. Validated by outsiders, the Futures Forum, headed into its home stretch, was again important in the eyes of the community--a necessary ingredient for success.

A May 16th Gazette editorial:

"Why is it when we look in the mirror, all we see are the blotches and pockmarks? Phoenicians too often give short shrift to the real accomplishments and attractions of which this community can boast. Saturday night, Phoenix was reminded, once again, how admiringly other Americans view the city - its democratic, town-hall political vibrancy; its can-do commitment to a better life; its frontier-spirited willingness to experiment and to avoid the mistakes of others. That reminder came with the prestigious All-American City designation..."


The Vision Statement Emerges

In late May, eight months into the process, the Futures Forum participants drafted a broad statement of the community's long range vision. The six-page document was titled ''Our Vision of the Future, A Declaration of Commitment." It was widely criticized for being "pie in the sky." It called for economically and racially integrated neighborhoods, the end of illegal drug use, the celebration of the Sonoran desert, and a host of other high goals.

The general goals were not intended to be an action plan; they were a statement of civic values, around which specific actions could be planned. But were the visions clear, inspirational, memorable? Frank Fiore, one of the volunteers who worked hard on the statement, commented that every word was the product of input from hundreds of people.

The following week, Tom Spratt's column hit hard:

"Visions must be expressed to have value. They must dance in people's heads like sugar plums on Christmas Eve. And that's why a proposed vision for Phoenix, expressed on six typewritten pages by the policy committee of the Phoenix Futures forum, lacks significance.

"The sugar plums are lost in a haze of verbiage... But somewhere within those six pages is a vision that could turn Phoenix into a great city. By making one choice, the forum could unlock the image and put the city on the right track ...

"But so far, what passes for a vision is an undiscerning list of all things bright and beautiful for a city... Like a child who wants to grow up to be a police officer, a doctor, a scientist, an astronaut and president of the United States, the forum sets no priorities. It gives equal billing to all qualities of urban life. The proposal is a blob.

Mr. Spratt's criticisms were followed closely by Forum volunteers because they were constructive. In yet another pounding article, he provided examples of cities that had focused on a single, powerful theme and succeeded: Duluth focused on its waterfront as an asset; San Jose on high-technology; Portland on a reorientation to pedestrians and transit; Indianapolis on amateur sports.

On June 5th, a slightly retooled vision statement was released by the mayor's office and the Forum staff. Its broad goals were met with fears that they were too general, and, almost paradoxically, by fears that they would require tax increases. A Gazette article that evening cited the goal, "a broad choice of transportation alternatives that are convenient, efficient, affordable, clean, safe and environmentally responsible,'' and followed with the question, "But is it attainable without tax increases?"

The knee-jerk translation of broad, priceless visions to tax estimates was not an unusual Phoenix reaction, and it demonstrated the wisdom of speaking in the most general terms until specific programs were ready to be proposed. The visions were, after all, value statements--not action plans. The Forum was at that hapless stage that all strategic planning and vision statement processes must pass: the obvious must be arrived at the hard, consensus-building way before the easy work of breaking new ground can begin. But there was a steady call from some Forum volunteers and the press for a unified, crystal vision.

Forum III.

Forum III began Friday evening with a meaty speech by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros. The Saturday sessions, 9 a.m. until 2:30, were free of charge, including lunch. Between 300 and 400 people attended.

Mayor Cisneros described the success of Target 90, a San Antonio group similar to the Forum that claimed success for a new stadium, libraries, and a renewed downtown. He suggested that Phoenix reinforce its role as a small business incubator. Sky Harbor should become a gateway to the Pacific Rim, he said. Phoenix should prepare of the "graying of America," by leading the way with progressive health care and taxation issues. He suggested that, with the support of the legislature, ASU should be upgraded to become one of America's great universities. He said the economic impact would be massive, and it should be the community's first order of business. He also suggested that neighborhoods should be reinforced through the urban village concept, bus schedules should be doubled, and strong, desert-friendly architectural and land use codes should be developed and enforced.

In the work sessions that followed, the vision statements were revised and sharpened.


In mid-July, the mayor asked the City Council to include among several items going to the voters on Oct. 3rd, a charter amendment that would specify how a mayor or council member would be replaced if they resigned.
During September, Terry Goddard concentrated on his reelection campaign. He was running against Norris Inman and Burton Kruglick. It was a lackluster race. Mr. Goddard would be reelected in a landslide.

Just before the election, community volunteer Claire Sargent, under the umbrella of the Phoenix Community Alliance and its director Steven Dragos. launched the International Desert Cities Conference. Ms. Sargent proposed to make Phoenix the recurring gathering point for leaders from desert cities around the world, beginning in 1991--the scheduled opening date of the Solar Oasis. Her vision was of transforming Phoenix by "embracing its desertness"--living authentically and vibrantly in the desert environment, rather than as "desert deniers, fighting against it." It was a strong image, accompanied by a proposed physical site--the Solar Oasis.

The Oasis was planned as the centerpiece for downtown redevelopment, a living exhibit that could grow to become a major attraction and thematic statement for Phoenix as "the premier desert city." If Phoenix needed an equivalent to Duluth's waterfront or San Antonio's river walk, Ms. Sargent was suggesting that the Sonoran desert and the Solar Oasis might be the answer under our noses. The Futures Forum would be highly supportive of the idea--but among so many other ideas.

The Solar Oasis would not survive the departure of Mr. Goddard from the mayor's office--it was one of the projects to fall apart in his absence and in tighter economic times. The Desert Cities Conference, however, and Ms. Sargent, moved ahead. A preliminary international conference of representatives from 16 desert cities in 11 countries was held at the Phoenician in April, Solar Oasis or not. Only the Mideast War would slow down Ms. Sargent's timetable. "Desert Cities met Desert Shield," she lamented when the conference office was staffed-down at the end of 1990.

In October, 1989, the Futures Forum added up the bills for the first year of operation: $59,309 on forums, workshops and committee meetings; $63,598 on publications and printed materials; $26,022 on mailings and office supplies; $29,813 on administration; $34,547 on public information; $9,548 to organize and develop reports; $15,146 on clerical work; $2,752 for consultation. With more expenses yet to come, the bill would be $410,000. Democracy wasn't free in a large city, nor did anyone expect it to be. It was a fraction of the cost of mayor and council operations, or the city manager's office, and it was, after all, the people's voice, not a half-mile of new sidewalks. But the high cost would be an easy reason for the next administration to look sideways at the Forum when Mr. Goddard was not on hand to protect it.

As the costs of the Forum--time as well as money--added up, the question of how the Forum's recommendations would be translated into City policy or other civic action became a more important issue. All the language about reducing the economic and racial segregation of the city, for instance, could be tackled with gradual but real changes in the zoning codes and creation of trust fund programs, as was being suggested to the Planning Department at that time by Chicago housing consultant Leslie Pollack, hired by the city to help design housing ordinances. Would the Forum fill the Council Chamber and the halls of the Legislature, using its crowd capital to demand real changes on a number of fronts? An implementation strategy was in the works, though the Steering Committee was working on the presumption that there was time to implement gradually. As it happened, there was not.


A week before the final Forum, The Republic was hedging its bet on the success of the Forum:

"The Phoenix Futures Forum cannot be faulted for a lack of imagination. Its 'vision statement' for Phoenix is charged with images of a community vigorously preparing for the challenges of the 21st century... The futuristic vision raises some obvious questions: Can the public be expected to rely on retread ideas to take it where it wants to go in the years ahead? Will voters who have consistently rejected visionary plans be willing to pay the fare in the future?
"Those who took part in the Futures Forum are banking on a positive public response to the lofty goals they have set. And some failed concepts may even be worth repeat efforts.
"Take mass transit, for instance..."

Forum IV, The "Futurefest"

Saturday, November 18th, 1989, the final Forum was at the Civic Plaza from 8:30 a.m. until 3:30. A $10 charge was asked for the continental breakfast and lunch. Over four hundred people participated, which was a much needed boost as the Forum headed to City Council.

It may be useful to ask at this point, why a final Forum? Most civic processes, such as Goals for Dallas or the work of the Minnesota Citizens League are ongoing, bringing new issues forward one-by-one. Some Futures Forum participants believed that there would be Forum events from time to time, to update the vision and the action priorities. Others saw Phoenix's ills as something that needed fixing so everyone could stop coming to so many meetings. In the final analysis, the short fuse put on the Futures Forum, and the belief that dozens of large issues had to be, and could be, advanced all at once, may have been a simple reflection of the mayor's own political timetable, combined with the fact that the Forum, as a visioning process, naturally gave issue to hundreds of ideas simultaneously. Other factors, such as pent-up citizen frustration caused by the lack of effective civic processes at the community level, and perhaps even a Phoenix way of thinking in terms of fast construction instead of steady growth, led to the creation of the huge assembly of ideas and the expectation that the whole lump could be digested by the City almost in one gulp.

In promoting Forum IV, Mayor Goddard announced, "The future of the community will literally be in the balance." At the event, a preliminary draft of recommendations would be presented and discussed, and the final version would go to the City Council in January.

At Forum IV, large slices of political meat were finally being served:

Proposals were made to strengthen the urban village concept and have the members of the village committees be elected, not appointed, in order to create communities with stronger identities. Each village, according to the recommendations, should have a town square/Mill Avenue-style focal point. As the City Planning Department was just beginning a major overhaul of the General Plan of the City, the Forum hoped that its recommendations would be well-timed.

A tax on vacant urban land was recommended to encourage infill development and discourage sprawl, with tax proceeds used for neighborhood improvement.

Using community colleges as the centerpieces of village cores, a program was recommended to guarantee access to higher education to all neighborhood children who met performance standards. The need for life-long education was seen as critical for a fast-changing economy.

The large-scale development of bike paths and shaded walkways was urged, including the improvement of canal banks for that purpose.

Some proposals generated surprised looks and questions from those who had not been in on the discussions, particularly recommendations for the creation of a "Learning Research Institute" to put Phoenix schools first in line for the 21st Century, and a local version of the Environmental Protection Agency--a recommendation that would settle into a call for an environmental ordinance to coordinate the City's patchwork of environmental policies.

From the dias of Forum IV, The Futurefest, Herb Ely held up a baby wearing a banner that read a.d. 2015. "This is what we're here for," he said. The day was full of graphic moments: Frank Fiore stacked a tower of cardboard bricks to show how the Forum's ideas interrelated.

Participants were supportive of the recommendations, though some people wanted more specifics. A woman who spent two hours on the bus each morning getting to her job at the Capitol from her home at 7th Street and Bethany thought that glittering generalities about transit wouldn't do the trick. Others saw the recommendations as creating broad new goals for the City, with implementations to be begin soon and continued indefinitely.

Charles Thompson of APS and Phoenix Together attended this Forum and the three previous Forums. He told the press that the broad scope of the recommendations was the right approach, that grand plans have to precede specifics. "If you don't have something to shoot for, you just go willy-nilly," he said.

The event may have been planned more for acclamation than serious debate. At one point, radio personality Preston Westmoreland took his microphone from table to table, asking people what they thought about the recommendations and about their dreams for the city. It would have been rude to make waves. Nevertheless, comments and objections were noted; new ideas and refinements were added.

The press reaction was positive, if guarded. The Arizona Business Gazette opined:

"The Futures Forum in its year long reign has created several ideal views of growth and change that are worthy of Phoenix's best efforts. It's time for the politicians to get to work and make these goals reachable.
"The suggestions from the group of citizens - many of whom are activists of some notoriety - range from the ridiculous to the sublime. But even the most ridiculous should spur others to develop similar ideas that can be acted upon.
"Among the better proposals are those that call for unified approaches to economic development and education...
"A curiosity was the recommendation to encourage development of Sky Harbor airport as the regional transportation center...



The promotion of Sky Harbor as a regional airport came at a time when the idea of a regional airport between Phoenix and Tucson was being considered. Mayor Goddard, who saw the regional status of Sky Harbor--five minutes from downtown--as a key economic asset for Phoenix, said publicly that the new regional airport idea was being floated by people who had speculated on desert land. Burton Kruglick, the mayor's opponent in the mayoral election, had favored the new airport. The Transportation and Urban Form Committee, possibly from a suggestion from Herb Ely, latched onto the issue, adding public support to Sky Harbor's expansion plans and helping to sink the new regional airport.
If the Forum was used as a tool in the mayor's successful attempt to preserve the economic status of Sky Harbor, it was not used unwillingly; the proposed new airport was seen by many Forum participants as a direct air attack on Phoenix by anti-urban interests. If anything, the Forum was profoundly pro-urban.

At the conclusion of Forum IV, the participants were asked if they would come to City Council to help put forward the recommendations and begin the implementation phase. They shouted their assent.

The year 1989 ended on a positive note for citizen engagement in Phoenix. In the world, too, simple democracy was exploding onto the scene: The Berlin Wall fell as citizens sang "We Shall Overcome;" the USSR fell to pieces; students died in Tiananmen Square under a papier-mache Statue of Liberty. By comparison, what was being done in Phoenix may have seemed trivial, but it was a part of that larger mass yearning.

1990

In the weeks between the Forum IV and the January 30, 1990 Council meeting, the recommendations were whittled down and placed in three categories, ranked by ease of implementation. A one-page vision statement was refined and printed--it is still displayed with respect in many offices around Phoenix.

On Thursday, January 18, 1990, Governor Rose Mofford, filling the remaining term of impeached Governor Evan Mecham, announced that she would not run for election. Phoenix Mayor Terry Goddard told the press that he would consider running. A three-way scramble to replace him began on the City Council among Council members Howard Adams, Paul Johnson and Mary Rose Wilcox. The mayor's successor would be chosen by a vote of the Council.


As the Forum recommendations neared the Council, the mayor prepared a budget allocation of $100,000 per year for two years to provide staff support to the Forum. Meetings were held between Forum volunteers and Council members to explain proposals and ask for votes. It was clearly a nice little train coming, and no one on Council chose to stand on the tracks. Even so, the Council would only be asked to "accept" the recommendations, not approve them. It was political softball. Rob Melnick of the Morrison Institute told the press that "Acceptance is a nice way for (the Council) to say, 'We're thinking about it.'"

From the Council's end, a three member subcommittee comprised of Thelda Williams, Howard Adams and Linda Nadolski was preparing to lead the implementation effort inside city government. In the private sector, attorney Jim Howard would lead, and would attempt to link the Forum with similar efforts then underway in Mesa and Tempe. Despite the near-certain departure of Mayor Goddard, there was a sense that things would move forward: Important people like ASU's new president Lattie Coor had bought into the process; there was a bright All America City decal on every city vehicle; four-hundred articulate citizens were preparing to be heard at City Council.

Just how many people really participated in the Forum was uncertain: the official count used by Forum staff varied from 2,500 to 3,500, though there may have been some guerrilla army math involved.


The Forum hired a professional writer to translate the recommendations into news stories, as seen from a time in the Future. For some readers, the approach made the recommendations understandable. The press was not amused. Hours before the big Council meeting, Tom Spratt's column in the Gazette tore into it:

"This final report offers nothing of value. It sets no priorities, offers no direction. It buries good ideas that took months to develop and replaces them with fluff. It dances deftly around the most important problems facing central Arizona...
"Since October 1988, the Futures Forum has struggled between forces for the improvement of metropolitan Phoenix and advocates of public relations fluff. Based on the final report, fluff seems to have won...
"The council... should take the real meat of the project--the nine strategic reports prepared by the citizen volunteers--and make that the heart of the forum.


Tuesday at 6:30 p.m., January 30, 1990, 6:30 p.m., hundreds of citizens filled the City Council chamber.


After laudatory remarks by Mayor Goddard and Herb Ely, and two and a half hours of presentation and explanation, the Council accepted the report unanimously.

The mayor commented that many of the issues would respond well to state leadership, a signal that he would let the Forum blossom in wider fields if he became Governor.

The package accepted by the Council included the Vision Statement, the creatively written final report (and the more specific technical backup), a three-part list of implementation recommendations, and an action plan that asked City government to institutionalize the Forum process.

The "Easy A's" could be done immediately within the existing policies and programs of the City.
The "Can Do B's" were actions only slightly outside the present activities of the City or the community
The "Major Initiative C's" were listed as "21 Initiatives for the 21st Century," and would each require extensive campaigns of development and implementation.

The institutional recommendations included: Establish a Futures Forum Action Committee as a City-sanctioned committee to oversee implementation; Have City staff review the final report of the Futures Forum to identify actions in category A which might be recommended to Council for adoption; have City staff identify actions in Category B and communicate these to appropriate boards or commissions for inclusion in their missions.


The January 30th Council meeting had, it was claimed by Forum staff, the largest crowd ever to attend a regular Council meeting--well over 400. "Seldom have so many people from so broad a cross-section of the community come together with a single purpose: how to make Phoenix a better city," applauded the Arizona Republic. The editorial continued:

"...But no matter how effective the consensus-building process may have been, and regardless of continued pressure from Phoenix citizens, panels such as this are no substitute for political leadership, a commodity that is generally in decline...
"The success of step one of the Phoenix Futures Forum is an encouraging sign that Phoenicians are more than just chronic naysayers. If this City Council and those to follow are serious about participatory democracy, the seeds that have been planted should not be permitted to wither and die.


Members of the 93-member Action Committee were thereafter to be appointed by the mayor, with Council approval. The Forum would pass fully into City hands.

Mayor Goddard departed City Hall on February 15th to run for governor. After a scramble, Paul Johnson would become the new mayor.

On March 6th, the City of Tempe, ASU's Morrison Institute and the Tempe business community announced a planned, $150,000 year-long visioning process.

By March 28, the Forum Staff had to go to Council for its 2-year, $290,000 budget authorization. The Council balked at long term funding, authorizing only $40,000 through June, at which time staff would have to come back. The Action Committee appointments still had not come down to Council from the mayor's office.

In early April, architects for the new Science Museum were approved by Council, as the forward inertia of many of Terry Goddard's programs continued on without him--though the proposed new City Hall would soon be scrapped for a less expensive building, and the Solar Oasis would teeter back and forth for the next several years until it fell off the budget. The Futures Forum staff was determined to be among the survivors.

On the encouraging side, what would soon be a familiar refrain was beginning to be heard in meeting halls, press events and in speeches across the Valley. It usually began like this: "As thousands of Valley citizens said in the Futures Forum..." The recommendations and positions of the Forum were being used--usually quite appropriately--as prefabricated public support for a wide range of issues. On April 19th, a MAG task force on housing and poverty cited the Forum's report to show wide public support for public policy action.

On Friday, April 27th, Mayor Paul Johnson told the City Club that he would lead the City Council in the aggressive implementation of the Futures Forum recommendations. "It can't just be Paul Johnson's gig," he told the club members, "it has to be the community's agenda and the agenda of everybody on the council." He said he would integrate the Forum into city business by having the appointed action committees report to council subcommittees.

He emphasized the importance of the environmental initiatives (he would later advocate the planting of one million new trees in Phoenix).

The following week, Frank Fairbanks became the new city manager, replacing retiring Marvin Andrews, who had begun the process of aggressively integrating the Forum's goals into the City's corporate plan.

Mayor Johnson told longtime Forum activists that he had finally really had time to read the Forum reports and had stayed up late into the night to finish them. He had decided that they offered the right course for Phoenix. His epiphany looked like good news to the Forum volunteers, some of whom had swung the key vote his way in his fight for the mayor's office.

Through the spring, the work of the Forum was delegated to subcommittees of the Council, where Forum leaders soon felt frustrated. Each meeting seemed to be a long attempt to bring a Council member up to speed on issues in which they often seemed less than fully interested. Frequently, what had taken hundreds of hours and hundreds of citizens to hammer out was dismissed with a shrug.

A two and a half-year effort to create an environmental ordinance was begun. But Forum volunteers were angered at the number of industry representatives appointed who questioned the need for the ordinance.

Just at the time when--everyone had said--the real work was beginning, the Forum was evaporating. Two of the primary sources of Forum muscle, the big crowds and the mayor's office, were fading into the distance. The highly articulate and tireless Forum Staff and key volunteers would fight on, but any real progress would require the recruitment of new friends in and around City Hall.

City Planning Director Ron Short was one to be counted on. He had participated enthusiastically in Forum meetings, and was now prepared and staffed to lead the Planning Department through a significant update of the City's 1985 General Plan of Development. His project manager for the update, Mike Kettermann, identified the Futures Forum recommendations as an "exhaustive" list of issues to be addressed first. Additional community "roundtables" (not "forums") were scheduled to give each geographic area of the city an opportunity to address local and citywide issues. The Forum processes, in which many Planning Department staffers had assisted, were being adopted as standard City procedure.

Council members, too, were seeing the advantages of roundtable sessions. Councilman Skip Rimsza, followed by Alan Kennedy (appointed to fill Paul Johnson's seat when Mr. Johnson became mayor), held open breakfasts in their districts. John Nelson had done the same for years with the Westside business community, but the feeling now was for wider citizen participation at the neighborhood level.

When Howard Adams quit the City Council on June 5th to run for justice of the peace, it was instructive that two of the three names that were immediately floated as logical replacements were active Futures Forum participants Craig Tribken and Kay Jeffries, both of whom had been working on the new mayor to bring him into the Forum's circle. Tribken would win the appointment after a lengthy process of community outreach and public interviews of candidates--a process that was unheard of in the affairs of the City Council even a few years earlier.

While openness was the new religion at City Hall, the long months of Council unrest had led to a new appreciation for prearranged compromises. Those outside the room when the deals were made were beginning to complain. By mid-June, the mood was anti-spending and decidedly private.

Two of the three assets that had secured the All-America designation for Phoenix were in jeopardy: The Forum was losing steam, and the $1 billion cultural bond issue was being pared-back and spread-out due to reduced City tax revenues and disappearing private funding matches --victims of the real estate and financial industry collapse, and victims of a change of spirit at City Hall. (The third item was the Neighborhood Maintenance Code, which was alive and well.)

Forum 4.5
the "Civic Leadership Summit"

On Saturday, October 27th, 1990, the Futures Forum announced that it was stepping into Phase II. A Civic Leadership Summit was held at the Civic Plaza, featuring Mayor Johnson, the Forum's new chairman, Alan Hald of MicroAge Computers, and 200 attendees. Valley Forward was there to help implement Forum environmental ideas, particularly recycling. The City Club would tackle arts, and the Valley Citizens League, the AIA Architects, ASU, the Valley of the Sun United Way, and other groups and firms attended to help organize other implementation efforts. Groups like the Sunnyslope Village Alliance, that had sprung into existence during the same regional civic thaw that hatched the Futures Forum, attended and shared ideas for local action.

Participants broke up into working groups in various areas: arts, culture, recreation and historic preservation; basic economic and resource development; citizenship and governance; environment & natural resources; transportation and urban form; and community, neighborhoods and services.

Mayor Johnson's speech, his first State of the City address, included a call for spending constraints, and a call for citizens and neighborhoods to do more for themselves. There was a distinction again being made, which had been suspended for the last few years, between joint citizen action and government. Block Watch, Neighborhood Fight Back, Neighborhood Night Out, were to become the darker language of a new fortress-neighborhood view of the community.

Of fifty Forum goals in the action plan, 17 were underway in late November; 18 were in planning, having been adopted by community organizations. Fifteen were yet orphans.

Among Forum ideas being rapidly developed by the City under the new City Manager, Frank Fairbanks, was the development of a citizen-access information system, making it easy to find Council agendas, neighborhood postings and other information about City government processes. The computer kiosks, called "Phoenix at Your Fingertips" would be first unveiled at Metrocenter and the Central Library in late November. A telephone version would be unveiled early in 1991. Long before Internet technology, the Valley was using computers to help citizens understand their government, thanks quite directly to the Forum.

To further improve ease of access to information, the City Manager adopted a Forum recommendation to cluster City zoning notices and other paid announcements on one page of the newspaper.

The posting of signs along freeways to provide directions to principal arts, cultural and sports facilities--a Forum recommendation--was quickly done.

The names of neighborhood associations and community groups were compiled centrally, and a new Neighborhood Notification Office was created to facilitate neighborhood services. That would soon fold into the larger Neighborhood Improvement and Housing Department, a major reworking a large part of City government.

Also under way was the Planning Department's update of the General Plan, where Forum ideas were being aggressively added to the new vision of urban villages. During the summer, Forum volunteers lunched with Planning Department staffers to brainstorm ways to include Forum ideas into the Plan. Less formal meetings and conversations on the same topic were a regular occurrence.

Forum activist Frank Fiore, a computer industry businessman who had been active in the Forum since its beginning, was optimistic about the Forum as it ended 1990. He saw Mayor Johnson's approach--integrating Forum activities into Council subcommittees--as holding promise for constructive action. "This reorganization will give individuals, civic groups and businesses a chance to have their issues heard by the decision-makers," he wrote in The Republic. But citizens, who early in the process were exhilarated by the sense that the community was theirs, were now settling back into their traditional City Hall role as supplicants.



Operating outside the City box, Forum Chairman Alan Hald of MicroAge was beginning to formulate ideas for integrating State economic development planning, as called for by the Forum. He was joined by Forum leader and strategist Ted Kraver, and other Forum participants. On Monday, November 19 at the job training offices of Gene Blue's Phoenix Opportunities Industrialization Center, Mr. Hald and a dozen community leaders grilled Mr. Blue: what kind of training was being provided? How do the jobs really relate to industry's current and future needs? Where is the coordinated plan? How does it all link to the state's economic development plan? How do business people access the training programs? It was the beginning of a new and highly successful framework for statewide economic development planning, where clusters of economic functions would be identified and plugged-in to gaps in the large-scale vision. It would become ASPED ("A-speed"), Arizona Strategic Plan for Economic Development, later to be adopted by the governor's office as GSPED.

While the Desert Cities Conference was a victim of the Gulf War, and the Solar Oasis was on again, off again in a constant dance around appearing and disappearing sources of funds and revised cost estimates, a Desertfest as envisioned by the Forum was in the works at the Desert Botanical Gardens, where Executive Director Robert Breunig, a regular Forum participant, had energized the idea.

On Tuesday, December 27th, 1990, an issue surfaced that caused some longtime Forum volunteers to bolt the mayor's new approach: neighbors living in the 44th Street corridor, who spent 18 months hashing-out development restrictions, felt betrayed when their plan was accepted as a non-binding guide without regulatory force.

The decision would not do what the neighborhood residents had worked for: a stop to large-scale neighborhood buyouts that was turning large tracts into partially abandoned and poorly maintained wastelands. Forum volunteer, and 44th Street participant Don Conrad spoke out strongly against the mayor and council: "it's just a slap in the face to citizen participation," he told the press. He decided to invest his future volunteer time in non-profit organizations, not in City committees. Leslie Hatfield, an early leader of the 44th Street project said it would be a long time before she would participate in another city project:

"My advice to the City Council is just to stop citizen planning, she said to the press after the council meeting. "If they're not going to listen to us, they shouldn't have us spend the time... I look at these people involved in the Futures Forum, and I want to say, 'What do you think you're doing?'...All these plans they're making are great, but I don't think this is a council that's going to do anything with them."

Attorney David Tierney, who had been working for two years on a citizens' plan for the 24th and Camelback area, warned that if their group got the same treatment, it would be time for another "grass-roots effort to throw the bums out." Their area plan had been launched during the widely-televised Camelback Esplanade Hearings, credited with helping to launch the current wave of neighborhood planning activism and civic participation. In the wake of the 44th Street decision, neighborhood activist Barbara Wyllie all but announced her campaign to oust John Nelson, who had voted with the mayor. The 44th Street vote was a turning point for many Forum participants, who turned away from active participation.

Both for those who stayed involved and those who left, the year 1990 ended with the feeling that times had changed. This was a new political era. Those hoping that Terry Goddard would be the once and future leader of an open civic process were still waiting for the runoff election in the governor's muddy race. The focus of public attention was moving to the international scene: The U.S. was poised to bomb Baghdad.

The high gas prices caused by the Mideast War caused some press interest in the Forum's call for a less petroleum-dependent city, but the time for big civic visions seemed over for awhile.

1991

In mid-January, 1991, the mayor's announced budget cuts included a 17% reduction in the Futures Forum. A consultant hired to facilitate public participation in environmental policy development was cut entirely. Neighborhood cleanup funds were cut in half. Arts programs were cut by 13%.

In February, Forum leader Linda Miller launched a package of neighborhood-supportive recommendations, taking it through the Council's neighborhood subcommittee. The idea of naming neighborhoods would go forward to implementation through the Planning Department, with help from ASU urban planning students and the City's ASU loaned executive, Louis Weschler.

Ms. Miller's forward march included a renewed push for a coordination of neighborhood associations, which would trigger a new consolidation of City departments. A group of 150 neighborhood volunteers met with the mayor, who agreed to pursue two to four ideas from the group.

On Wednesday, February 28th, the first 30 bike racks were bolted onto the front of Phoenix buses, an adaptation of a Forum recommendation. More bike routes were being developed across the city. The first Solar-Electric car race was set for April at PIR. The only dust gathering on Forum recommendations so far was trail dust.


With March came a new governor for Arizona. Fife Symington had beaten Terry Goddard in a close race.


In early April, Mayor Johnson launched the "Points of Pride" program to designate and places of community interest. He also announce that the entry points to urban villages would be given attractive signs, and a new series of pedestrian events, "Sunday on Central," scheduled to begin in October. The recommendations came forward from his Phoenix Pride Commission, which had been meeting privately and unannounced at City Hall, to some criticism.

The Forum seemed to be falling out of the loop.

In mid-May, 1991, Tempe finished its visioning process and distributed a 22-page book to describe the results. Scottsdale's visioning process was underway, and Mesa and Apache Junction were considering programs.

In mid-June a recycling task force of the Futures Forum convened, working with Valley Forward, who would honor organizations pitching in. Futures Forum task forces continued to pop up with big and little projects. In July, the Futures Forum Youth Opportunities Task Force joined the Sunnyslope Village Alliance in hosting a one-day planning academy to teach high school students how the planning and zoning processes work.

That same week, the Forum's Learning Research Institute, with some APS funds in hand, opened a small office on Central. (It spawned schools and organizations that are still active. Still energized by Forum volunteer Ted Kraver, it remains a key force in planning the electronic infrastructure that increasingly connects government, education and industry in Arizona.)

In August, the Forum sponsored a U.N.-style meeting of 30 environmental groups to facilitate better communication. Even conservative newspaper columnists thought it was a positive way to handle tough issues.

Behind this flurry of activity were Forum staffers Tammy Bosse, Rod Engelen, and a core group of volunteers. In the same special projects office of the City Manager, strategists Lance Decker and Charles Hill were cataloging all Forum recommendations, tracking status, assigning items to departments, and folding Forum recommendations into the City's corporate plan --the operating software of the City.

By September, bruised citizen feelings from the past year had translated to election battle lines in the upcoming Council race. Newspaper stories characterized the battle as life or death for the neighborhood movement, and acknowledged that the City had abandoned most of the quality planning goals set forth by the Futures Forum. The election did not go well for the neighborhood activists. The Forum's earliest advocate on Council, Linda Nadolski, was defeated for reelection. Craig Tribken, a Forum participant who remained accessible and whose vote often went the neighborhood way, was still there. So were neighborhood supporters Calvin Goode and Mary Rose Wilcox. Together, they were two votes short.

Forum V.

Futures Forum V, "Creating a Community of Good Neighbors," took place between 2 and 8:30 p.m. Thursday, October 17th at the Civic Plaza, with approximately 200 in attendance. Topics included: Creating a Council of Neighborhoods, Decentralizing and Coordinating Community Services, and Building Neighborhood Identity and Pride.
Columnist Tom Spratt warned: "Of course, such discussions won't make one iota of difference unless participants figure out a way to grab more power and influence in city government."

Mayor Johnson used the Forum to launch the "Year of the Family," a package of family-oriented city programs, including the distribution of brochures about substance abuse, suicide and shoplifting. Free youth tours of the old City Hall and Science Museum's preview center were also included in his vision.

Carol Kamin of the Arizona Children's Action Alliance told David Schwartz of the Republic that the proposals were a good first step, but that more of an effort would be needed to make much of a difference.

The hot topic was whether the new council of neighborhood associations should be a part of City Hall, or independent. The battle lines followed the scars of mistrust that had formed over the previous year. The argument would extend into 1992, when agreement would be reached that the neighborhood council should stay free of political positions. Its role would be to facilitate the organizational process within neighborhoods. It would apply for City money, or perhaps become a function of the new Neighborhood Notification Office. It would not be a new voice on important neighborhood issues.

On October 23rd, Scottsdale's vision program kicked-off with a speech by an attorney who had participated in a similar program in Lincoln, Nebraska. The management of the visioning program would be coordinated by two large-scale development and architectural planning firms.


In November, the Phoenix Planning Department went from village to urban village discussing new ideas about the nature of urban villages and their cores--ideas that were developed at a workshop with ASU's Urban Design Program. It was clear that the focus of the Planning Department was now squarely on neighborhoods and associated transportation.

At the end of 1991, the Futures Forum was dead at the Council level, but it was still reshaping the Planning Department and the cluster of departments serving neighborhood and housing issues. There was significant environmental leadership underway, and Alan Hald was pushing ASPED ahead, transforming the mishmash of Arizona economic development/technical training programs into a sensible and successful system.

1992

The January inauguration of the new City Council featured hours of speeches, but not a single mention of the Futures Forum or any plans for civic improvement. Mayor Johnson was focused on repairing the business climate in the present difficult economic times.

Across to the East, the City of Mesa was beginning a year-long visioning process, led by the Mesa Chamber of Commerce. Citizens were asked to participate on any of several task forces, including: education, environment & natural resources, parks/recreation/cultural issues, governance and human services.

Forum VI.

Thursday, February 20th, 1992. Forum VI featured the man who had started much of all this, five years earlier. Neil Peirce told the Civic Plaza crowd that Phoenix seemed to have lost its confidence since his last visit--so many big defeats like Rio Salado, ValTrans, the Impeachment, Ascam, MLK, the loss of local lending institutions, and on. He said across-the-board city budget cuts, rather than targeted cuts, showed a lack of leadership. What the city ought to do, he said, was save money by empowering the neighborhoods to make more decisions for themselves, building democratic citizenship in the process.

He warned that there would be a huge price to pay for uncontained sprawl. But he saw as a bright spot the creation of the Futures Forum and also the Valley Citizens League--"a promising sign of your regional civic future." And the downtown was coming alive: the Herberger, Arizona Center, the dash shuttles, the Suns arena construction. "Light years of progress!" he pronounced to the press. He slammed the City Council from the Futures Forum podium: "...your new City Council is so intent on recapturing the faded prosperity of the '80s that it's ready to ignore the Phoenix Futures recommendations, the consensus for sound environmental controls and all the rest, no matter how broad their base of citizen thought and support."

The Valley Citizens League that he saw as a promising development was now under the leadership of Joel Harnett, publisher of Phoenix Home and Garden Magazine. Forty companies and 550 individuals were now members. Its focus was county home rule as a first order of Valley business, which Mr. Peirce also saw as crucial. He couldn't understand why it hadn't already happened.

Forum VII.

On Earth Day, April 22nd, 1992, the Futures Forum presented Bruce Babbitt and actor Dennis Weaver at a Civic Plaza event called "Desert Renaissance--a community forum addressing proposals on the environment, arts, culture and recreation. Some topics: Is Being Green Good for Business? Matchmaking: The Supply and Demand Side of Recycling.

KPNX Channel 12 televised a town hall portion of the program during prime time from Central High School. Kent Dana led the panel through issues including air pollution, water resources, economic growth, waste disposal and the importance of citizen power in bringing about changes.

Leaving City Hall

In May of 1992, Rod Engelen and Alan Hald were searching for a marriage partner for the Forum, to get it into the community and out of City Hall. They met with Jerry Colangelo of Greater Phoenix Leadership, who looked at the Forum's list of issues and commented that GPL (then "The Phoenix 40") was already looking at those issues and had its own processes. They met with Joel Harnett, president of the Valley Citizens League, but he expressed concern that the Forum's methodology might require them to become nursemaids to an overlarge group of volunteers, deflecting their resources from their work with community leaders.

An agreement was made, however, with the 56-year-old Community Council, which would then change its name to the Community Forum. Ten representatives from the Futures Forum were added to the Community Forum's board. (The Community Forum remains active today in a wide range of civic improvement issues.)

The merger was opposed by Citizens League president, Joel Harnett, who said that the group would compete with it for resources, and that the Forum, essentially a visioning process, had done its work and should be retired.

In fact, the Forum's efforts were now so distributed--from the Governor's economic development office to the City Planning office, the newly evolving Neighborhood Improvement Office and a dozen other places in between--that it was hard for anyone to follow the action.

But it did seem to be winding down, and shifting mostly to limited, neighborhood issues. The two and a half-year Environmental Ordinance effort was falling apart, as Forum activists walked out in disgust when a phalanx of business appointments insisted that the ordinance would be advisory only--like the 44th Street plan.

Deja Vu

In August, with the Forum office still packing to leave City Hall, a handful of Phoenix leaders gathered with the mayor to consider a vision for Phoenix. The Phoenix Image Group, about two dozen Phoenix "movers and shakers," spent two days on the project, with the help of Focus Change International of San Diego.

"The concept of becoming the premier or world-class desert city was felt to be the general position we believed achievable in the next five years,'' a spokeswoman from the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce said.

The object of what the newspaper would call the "PIG effort" would be "to arrive at an agreed-upon image toward which civic groups from across the city can work."

"This was the first time that leaders from all these civic organizations got together to consider this kind of thing," the Chamber spokesperson told the press. The group had the idea that the Solar Oasis might be developed as a destination project to draw people downtown. Sub-groups would consider economic-development issues, cleaning up the city's air, and implementing a state-funded job-training program.

In the absence of leadership, the reinvention of the wheel had begun again.

But during the next month, the job of equipping the entire fleet of City buses with bike racks would be finished, the city's general plan update would continue to grind on toward its new neighborhood emphasis, the city's corporate plan would move forward; GSPED would shift the State's economic development plan into high gear. In a thousand now invisible ways, every hour poured into the Futures Forum was moving the community onward in more intelligent, creative, beneficial ways.