Schön, Donald A., Bish Sanyal, and William J. Mitchell, editors, High Technology and Low-Income Communities: Prospects for the Positive Use of Advanced Information Technology. Cambridge MA: MIT Press (1998). High Technology and Low-Income Communities: Prospects for the Positive Use of Advanced Information Technology Not for circulation or quotation. 7 Information Technologies That Change Relationships between Low-Income Communities and the Public and NonProfit Agencies That Serve Them Joseph Ferreira, Jr. What are the prospective benefits for service providers and service recipients of decentralized access to information about populations and their needs, service systems, and operations? Will growing access to such information be, on the whole, enfranchising for community members, or will it subject them to increased centralized control? This chapter examines particular ways in which information technologies (IT) can make land-use planning (and other aspects of metropolitan evolution) more transparent and understandable to individuals and communities. The point is not that such a use of IT is possible; rather, it is to better understand how it might empower or disenfranchise low-income communities, promote efficiency through improved self-governance, or further centralize authority in the hands of government and other large-scale data providers. I begin by focusing on a simple, seemingly straightforward example of the use of IT: to computerize inquiries about land use and ownership of land and property in the city. This "simple" example of decentralized data access becomes complicated, however, as soon as the issues of maintenance and updating are addressed. Moreover, various IT strategies for addressing these issues have significantly different impacts on whether or not data access promotes effective decentralization and citizen empowerment. A careful examination of some of the issues and options involved in simple example improves our ability to draw inferences about how access to information can and should foster improved metropolitan governance and broader public participation in urban and regional planning. The real potential for capitalizing on IT to improve governance is not simply a matter of automating government services, nor is it a question of whether or not to introduce IT. Shaping planning processes, to capitalize on IT, are crucial in improving local governance through reduced bureaucracy and devolution of authority. My reasoning is consistent with recent observations in the management literature by Shoshana Zuboff, Tom Peters, and others about IT-driven restructuring of work in U.S. corporations (Peters 1992; Zuboff 1988).Supporting urban revitalization with data and information systems The role and relevance of information in urban planning is a broad, complex, and much-debated issue (Harris 1989; Innes 1995, Schön 1995). Here I focus on a few practices (of data gathering and analysis) that are common in urban revitalization, concentrating on how the design and implementation of a metropolitan area's information infrastructure can affect the usefulness of such practices to constituencies typically involved in urban revitalization. Urban planning can be about the public investment, authorization, and support for improved infrastructure (roads, transit, water and sewer, etc.), and for other public works and services (parks, buildings, public housing, garbage collection, job training, public safety, health care, etc.). It can also be about the regulatory processes that set, monitor, and enforce land-use and zoning regulations, environmental controls, economic development incentives, design guidelines, and the like. Land-use functions-the focus of this chapter-are typically undertaken by institutions that exist in different sectors (public, private, and nonprofit) and at different levels of government (federal, state, metropolitan, city, and neighborhood). In Boston, for example, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) plays a key role in land-use planning. It is usually responsible for planning studies of major real estate investment projects such as Government Center, the Prudential Center complex, and more recently, the controversial "megaplex" proposals to develop a convention center and related commercial and sports facilities in South Boston. But, the Boston Housing Authority (BHA), which owns and manages housing for more than 10 percent of the city's residents, is the lead agency for two Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-financed urban revitalization demonstration programs costing more than $80 million over a five-year period. Neither authority is completely under the mayor's control, nor are they the only citywide agencies with significant authority in land-use planning. Boston's Public Facilities Department (PFD) is responsible for land and facilities owned by the city (including, for example, abandoned property); it is also heavily involved in Boston's "Empowerment Zone" planning.[1] Other federal-, state-, and metropolitan-level agencies and authorities are also significant players in urban redevelopment. HUD and the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) are major underwriters of subsidized housing in the region; the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) is in the midst of multi-billion dollar projects to upgrade the region's water and sewer system; and the Central Artery Project is managing the $7 billion decade-long transportation improvement project to sink Boston's Central Artery and build a third harbor tunnel. Also, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) and related transit and transportation planning agencies have a considerable impact (through their control of transit routes and transportation investment) on the accessibility of inner-city residents to jobs and services; and federal and state environmental protection agencies regulate the reuse of the many "brownfields"[2] in inner- city areas that have questionable land-use history. Private agencies are also important in land-use planning. The Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership (MBHP), a regional nonprofit organization, manages the pass-through of state and federal housing subsidies for more than five thousand households. Along with large landlords, community development corporations, neighborhood and church associations, private developers, and the like, such groups represent significant interests and planning/management capabilities that are vocal, more