An important measure of success for any of the tools profiled in this report is how the tools are ultimately implemented and enforced. In many communities, good ideas are often ignored or forgotten by political leaders because they are not supported by an effective implementation strategy. The Citizen’s Guide to Planning identifies important concepts to help ensure that ideas are likely to be implemented:
- Prioritized. Make sure the steps for implementation are categorized by priority, making it clear to decision-makers and the community what needs to happen to move an idea forward, both in the short and long term.
- Politically realistic. Develop a strategy that is responsive to the local political climate. Consider your top priorities from the first step, and ask yourself how to communicate the value to your leaders.
- Financially realistic. A good planning tool will account for all costs of implementation, and increases confidence in the community that their local government is being transparent and a good steward of public funds.
- Time realistic. Understand that complex tools take time. Be realistic based on current capacity when estimating timelines for implementation.
- Accountable. Define responsible parties for implementing a strategy or planning mechanism. For more complex or longer-range projects, provide updates to community leaders on the status of those projects.
- Understandable to citizens. Avoid planning jargon, and keep it as short and simple as possible while providing adequate background on the issues and solutions (Duerksen, Dale, & Elliott, 2009).
The question local governments need to ask is whether or not to embrace the concept of hazard mitigation to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of their community—or treat it as another federal mandate that needs to be satisfied.
Once a program, policy, or tool has been adopted, planners must regularly maintain and enforce it. Many communities struggle to balance regulations that are “good ideas” versus those they have the capacity to enforce. That concept should be considered for any planning tool or strategy mentioned in this document.
As John F. Kennedy once said, “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.” Similarly, as stated in the 2010 APA publication, Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning, “Postponing the confrontation with reality that hazard mitigation planning entails is simply unsound public policy. Tomorrow may be the day when an earthquake strikes, a flood inundates, or an unstable hillside tumbles and falls.”
Local governments do have a choice. Hazard mitigation involves taking sustained action to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from hazards. The costs of inaction may be disasters, from which taxpayer money is required to recover. Substantial post-disaster funding assistance may be available through federal or state disaster declarations; however, local governments will always share in the costs of disasters—both directly and indirectly.
An independent study by the National Institute of Building Sciences found that every dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of four dollars (Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves, 2005, p. 5). Therefore, it should be seen as a fiduciary responsibility of local government to take the time to thoughtfully consider projects or initiatives that reduce the potential impacts of hazards within their jurisdiction.