Question

Stone and Forester address policy analysis and how one might think about analysis and decision-making from a different angle/perspective than the more traditional policy approach. Using the following example, discuss how incorporating Stone and/or Forester’s ideas could make for a better analysis of how to renovate a “seedy” downtown. In particular, think about the types of questions you might first need to ask and consider based on Stone and Forester, including why I should consider a different word than “seedy”?

Answer

 

1. Introduction

The purpose of this study is to explore the potential that Stone and Forester’s research on policy analysis and decision-making has to be utilized in a practical context. To do this, I have chosen to apply their theories to the decisions and actions made in the renovation of a downtown core in a small city where I was heavily involved in a number of volunteer and paid positions for eight years. My involvement in this community has given me a clear understanding of the decisions and actions taken in the process of attempting to renew the city’s image and improve the quality of life for residents. I will use a mixture of personal experiences and observed events and actions to support the theories put forth by Stone and Forester. This paper will begin by explaining the setting of the downtown focusing on issues of safety, loitering and general discomfort felt by citizens. Following this, there will be an explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of past policy decisions with emphasis on projects that succeeded and those that failed. From here, I will follow the general steps of policy analysis and decision making by identifying problems, goals, discussing solutions and alternatives, providing the choices implications and finally assessing the decisions that were made. I have chosen this setting for a few specific reasons. First, the downtown can act as a symbol for the overall health of a community and the pride that the citizens hold for their city. Second, I felt that many of the justifications for projects and decisions made were simply habitual or based on what had worked in the past. This will make identifying the thought processes of the decision makers more realistic. Finally, the issues that I have chosen to discuss are simple and clear thus making them good examples.

1.1. Background of the “Seedy” Downtown

Background of the “Seedy” Downtown This particular case is the past policy decision for urban renewal in the 1970-1980s and the changes that resulted from said policy. The reason an urban renewal policy was chosen during that time is that the city of Colorado Springs felt a need to redo the downtown area, as it was seen as a deteriorating and unattractive environment. The specific stimuli for the decision was the ruining of the Antlers Hotel in a gas fire accident in 1964, which up until its closing, was a symbol for the city of Colorado Springs. In turn, for the cause of the fire, the owner and insurance money removed all of the hotel’s valuable marble and left an eyesore for the city. During the same time, there were modernist ideology city planners who felt that the future of the city should be high-density, high-rise buildings and an auto environment. All of these factors led to the DDA’s decision to pursue a policy to “redo” the downtown area.

Introduction The present project is an analysis of a small portion of the urban policy process – the implementation of said policy. This includes design, technology, infrastructure, and monitoring changes in the large area in downtown Colorado Springs, Colorado. Policy analysis theories, concepts, and tools are used in this evaluation. It is more of an end-to-end system evaluated, given that the Downtown Development Authority itself is in charge of the implementation of most policy decisions in the area, and that it is a self-contained way to measure its successes and failures. The area itself is a small portion of the downtown area, running west from I-25 to Cascade Ave and south from Fillmore St to Bijou St. This study focuses on this specific area and is prompted by the direct knowledge, working experience, and data from the DDA. Using this information, together we have evaluated the policy decisions in various projects over the past few decades and the changes in the area. (The DDA has a 40-year duration, ending in 2026.) We have taken a step back from current policy monitoring and isolated a few separate policy decisions over the existence of the DDA to evaluate their results and effectiveness. This is truly an evaluation of what has worked in policy decisions, what has not, and what can be learned from both.

1.2. Importance of Policy Analysis in Renovation Projects

This could suggest that setting off new programs of assessment and evaluation in policy areas, dedicating resources in an attempt to improve effectiveness of the present resource use.

This is taking into consideration that policy issues often involve proposals to allocate resources whether it’s to solve an issue, to enhance preventative action or to improve the existing conditions. It is obvious that all proposed changes involve some change in the allocation, type or utilization of existing resources. Since it is changes to the allotment and use of resources which represent changes in conditions, it is generally agreed that the results concerning whether a given policy has solved a particular problem or has advanced conditions may be evaluated by comparison of value between conditions before and after the implementation of the policy.

In general, the point and approach of public policy swing around efforts to resolve problem situations which are specific to certain public issues, or to enhance the conditions surrounding an issue taking place in broad coverage areas. It is seen that any change which incurred through policy decision is an attempt to change existing conditions into desired ones and it was with this intention in mind concerning specific issues, stone and scrolling got down to determine the method in which a problem was identified in an attempt to suggest changes within certain conditions by bringing about better conditions, or changing present conditions into new ones.

An understanding of the way in which public coverage propels and precipitates changes on the ground is of essential significance to all who are worried in the mission of trying to change the face of poverty in towns. Changes in public policy are conceptualized as planned modifications in activity of government agencies or changes in laws, rules and guidelines which serve to solve problems and improve or adjust the conditions present in the given society.

Before a plan for policy change may well be evolved, it’s obvious that learning ‘public reaction to trade’ is of significant importance. The central focal point of this kind of response into policy issues has been the arena of coverage analysis, and it’s for that reason essential to determine the scope of coverage analysis within the evaluation of steps taken to renovate downtown Hamilton.

2. Stone and Forester’s Perspective

2.1. Understanding Alternative Approaches to Policy Analysis

2.2. Challenging Traditional Policy Approaches

3. Asking the Right Questions

3.1. Rethinking the Term “Seedy”

3.2. Identifying Stakeholders and Their Perspectives

3.3. Analyzing the Root Causes of Downtown Issues

4. Considering Different Perspectives

4.1. Examining the Economic Impact of Renovation

4.2. Assessing Social and Cultural Factors

4.3. Evaluating Environmental Implications

5. Incorporating Community Input

5.1. Engaging with Local Residents and Business Owners

5.2. Conducting Surveys and Public Meetings

5.3. Incorporating Public Feedback into Decision-Making

6. Analyzing Policy Alternatives

6.1. Exploring Different Renovation Strategies

6.2. Evaluating the Feasibility of Each Option

6.3. Assessing the Cost-Benefit Ratio

7. Implementing the Chosen Policy

7.1. Developing an Action Plan

7.2. Allocating Resources Effectively

7.3. Monitoring and Evaluating the Results

8. Conclusion