| HOME | MEDIANS | COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS | STREAMBANKS | INVASIVE PLANTS | TOWN PLANS | CURBSIDE COMPOSTING |
| REAL-PROPERTY TAXES & FEES | AFFORDABLE HOUSING | TOWN HALL CAMPUS | COMMUNITY GARDENS | ONE MILLION TREES |
| DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT | * * WHY NOT ? * * |
When I read one of the Town's plans, say the Urban Forest Master Plan, or the draft Open Space Plan, I'm left with an empty and daunting feeling that the plan doesn't really say anything. I see it filled with text and bullet points and images and graphs and charts, but when I try to form an image in my mind about what concrete proposals the plan puts forth, I come up empty.
Here are the verbs used in listing strategies to achieve the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan: enhance, incorporate, strengthen (2), improve, promote and conserve, explore, engage and educate, set the stage, and institute. The word 'shovel,' either as a verb or a noun, doesn't appear in the Plan, and the word 'plant' is only used as a noun.
In order to get a better understanding of my own confused feelings, I asked ChatGPT for help. I asked specifically about municipal plans that don't seem to propose anything concrete, and why this is. This is what ChatGPT said:
"Many municipal planning documents – especially those that deal with open space, parks, or urban forests – tend to sprawl into long reports that sound ambitious but ultimately avoid committing to anything specific. They often begin with extensive background sections full of demographic data, definitions, and generalized statements of purpose. Pages are devoted to lofty language about “enhancing community well-being,” “building resilience,” or “protecting natural heritage,” but without clearly identifying which parcels of land should be protected, when they should be protected, and with what resources. This emphasis on vision over detail can leave citizens with the impression of progress while allowing leaders to avoid commiting to concrete steps.
"A typical urban forest plan, for example, might contain chapters on canopy goals, climate adaptation, and public engagement, yet stop short of naming exact planting targets, species selections, or budget commitments. Instead of saying “plant 2,000 oaks in the next three years along X corridors,” the plan will opt for language like “encourage additional tree planting in urban neighborhoods.” The difference is subtle but significant: one is measurable and enforceable, the other is aspirational and non-binding. Overly broad language also makes it hard for residents or watchdog groups to track whether the municipality is actually doing what it set out to do.
"Open space plans often follow a similar pattern. They may inventory existing parks and natural areas, provide colorful maps, and list categories of land worth preserving – streams, wetlands, scenic viewsheds – but rarely state which tracts will be pursued for acquisition, or how much funding is allocated. Instead of setting a priority list, the plan may say that the town “will explore opportunities” or “continue to assess potential partnerships.” This cautious phrasing allows flexibility but can easily translate into inaction if leaders aren’t motivated. In the end, such documents can serve more as public relations tools than as blueprints for action, projecting a sense of stewardship while listing no hard decisions."
I asked for examples of what ChatGPT described. It asked me to upload a section of a plan. I uploaded a long section of the plan for analysis by ChatGPT:
Excellent — thanks for pasting such a big slice of the plan. Let’s walk through it systematically. I’ll flag each action step as either:
**Results-Oriented (measurable / accountable)**, or
**Process-Oriented (aspirational / indefinite)**
and explain why.
## **Objective 1.1 – Expand Open Space Network**
**1.1.1 – Create a formal process for evaluating, prioritizing, and acquiring open space.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Framework, not acreage or timeline.
**1.1.2 – Create an acquisition checklist for parcels (acreage, canopy, ecological value, connectivity, etc.).**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Tool-building, not action.
**1.1.3 – Create geospatial information and criteria mapping.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Mapping, not acquisition.
**1.1.4 – Develop criteria to identify priority locations for private open space preservation.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Identification, not protection.
**1.1.5 – Explore incentives (awards, recognition) for private landowners.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** “Explore” = no commitment.
**1.1.6 – Continue to partner on conservation efforts with universities, nonprofits, etc.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Ongoing partnership without measurable outcomes.
**1.1.7 – Develop a publicly available tool that identifies funding sources and incentives.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Informational tool, not funding commitment.
**1.1.8 – Continue to proactively acquire land to upkeep level-of-service standards.**
➡️ **Borderline.** Mentions acquisition, but no target acreage, timeline, or budget.
---## **Objective 1.2 – Inspire Environmental Health**
**1.2.1 – Coordinate a plan for educating the community on sustainability policies.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Outreach plan only.
**1.2.2 – Share educational resources with private landowners.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** No mandate, no measure.
**1.2.3 – Collaborate with private companies and nonprofits on open space management.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Partnership, not outcomes.
**1.2.4 – Integrate ecological design standards into development policies.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Could matter if codified, but no measurable enforcement described.
**1.2.5 – Continue working with regional partners to protect drinking water sources.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** No numeric protection target.
---## **Objective 1.3 – Promote Multi-Jurisdictional Support**
**1.3.1 – Develop joint agreements with overlapping jurisdictions.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Agreement-making, not action.
**1.3.2 – Explore funding opportunities for inter-jurisdictional efforts.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** “Explore” = open-ended. ---
## **Objective 2.1 – Increase Biodiversity & Native Ecosystems**
**2.1.1 – Identify areas and develop tactics to address degraded ecosystems / invasive species.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Identification, not actual remediation.
**2.1.2 – Prioritize native species and green stormwater infrastructure at Town facilities.**
➡️ **Borderline.** Suggests a direction, but lacks numbers, locations, or deadlines.
**2.1.3 – Actively thin forested areas along greenways while maintaining buffers.**
➡️ **Results-Oriented.** First clear management directive (“actively thin”). Still lacks scale/timing, but at least describes a physical action.
**2.1.4 – Identify invasive species on Town-owned lands and prioritize for management.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Identification stage; no specific removal quota.
**2.1.5 – Complete and implement actions from existing Creek Management Plans.**
➡️ **Results-Oriented (qualified).** Refers to external documents—if those plans have measurable actions, this becomes enforceable. But here it’s vague.
**2.1.6 – Create a recommended plantings list.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** List creation, not planting.
**2.1.7 – Develop programs to encourage planting native species.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Outreach again; no numeric planting goal. ---
## **Objective 2.2 – Support Ecological Connectivity**
**2.2.1 – Identify open space types critical to migration.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Inventory step.
**2.2.2 – Create best practices and design guidelines for corridors.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Guideline drafting.
**2.2.3 – Improve wildlife and vegetation connectivity by embedding guidelines at Town facilities.**
➡️ **Borderline.** Action verb “improve,” but no metrics or timeline.
**2.2.4 – Evaluate greenway design guidelines to balance wildlife and human access.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Evaluation, not change.
**2.2.5 – Collaborate with organizations to fill in ecological gaps.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Partnership only.
**2.2.6 – Develop a map documenting endangered/threatened species.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Documentation, not protection. ---
## **Objective 3.1 – Manage Open Spaces through Operations**
**3.1.1 – Evaluate staffing needs and implement a model.**
➡️ **
Borderline.** Mentions “implement,” but still vague. No hiring target.
**3.1.2 – Develop an ecological management plan for Town-owned land.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Planning document, not implementation.
**3.1.3 – Create standards for volunteer training.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Standards, not action.
**3.1.4 – Create pictorial guides for contractors/HOAs.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Educational material.
**3.1.5 – Identify and use more sustainable alternative materials.**
➡️ **Borderline.** “Use” implies action, but no timeline/volume.
**3.1.6 – Develop standards for low-mow maintenance.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Standards only.
**3.1.7 – Develop a publicly available tool identifying funding sources.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Informational tool.
**3.1.8 – Improve interdepartmental coordination.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Process adjustment, no measurable outcome.
**3.1.9 – Ensure development review committee provides input on proposals affecting conservation.**
➡️ **Process-Oriented.** Input required, but no binding authority. ---
**Results-Oriented:** 2 clear (2.1.3, 2.1.5 if implemented)
**Borderline / implied action:** 4 (1.1.8, 2.1.2, 2.2.3, 3.1.1/3.1.5)
**Process-Oriented:** ~30+
That means over 80% of “action steps” are aspirational or procedural**, not concrete commitments.
The Cary Open Space Plan looks like an “action plan” on paper, but in reality, it’s **heavily weighted toward processes, tools, and partnerships**. It avoids **specific numbers, dates, budgets, or accountability measures.** Only a handful of items (“thin forested areas,” “complete creek management plan actions”) rise to the level of true management directives – and even those lack metrics.
The is the draft Open Space Plan preamble:
Preamble
In Cary, plans are aspirational roadmaps intended to help accomplish long-term visions in an ever-changing world; they are not fixed promises based on a known, fully predictable, and static future. This plan was developed using the best information available alongside the priorities and values of the sitting Town Council and citizens of Cary at the time of publication.
Implementation will evolve and adapt in response to technological innovations, demographic shifts, emerging issues, and related fiscal circumstances as well as changes in the legislative, regulatory, economic, and geopolitical environment as future budgets are adopted to carry out items described herein.
So the Preamble confirms exactly what ChatGPT predicted: the document is not a blueprint for action but a mere catalogue of aspirations – attractive charts, lofty language, and endless process steps that can be adapted, delayed, or quietly forgotten.
Which leaves Cary residents with two imortant questions:
First, how much did this plan actually cost us – consultants, staff hours, printing, outreach, and every line item buried in the budget? ChatGPT estimates that the draft Open Space Plan cost the Town between $150,000 and $300,000. My estimate is between $500,000 and $600,000. Who can or will answer this question?
And second, if the Town never intended to bind itself to concrete action in the first place, then the bluntest question is also the fairest: why bother creating a plan at all? Granted, as ChatGPT says, the plan is an instrument of public relations. But who, precisely, is swayed by the Plan, and toward what end that is of any benefit at all to Cary citizens?
| 2025 Campaign Websites | ||
|---|---|---|
| District A | ||
| District C | ||
| At-Large | ||
| Find Your Council District | ||