Of course this leaves the application of conditional zoning, permits, and similar legal and regulatory devices used in the mitigation of developmental impacts open to litigation. Since planning is more soft science than hard science, determining developmental impacts and creating regulatory tools to mitigate such impacts is difficult to accomplish with any technical precision. Dolan has impacted planning by requiring plans, the basis for regulatory devices, to be more scientific. I did not say requiring planners to be more scientific. Dolan implicitly underscores the definition of what planners do, that is, to bring professionals from other fields together to form the plan.
Planners are experts at bringing together experts.
Dolan insists on better planning and substantiation of planning assumptions. If some planners view this as negative, then maybe they should not be planning. The idea of reasonable regulation, maybe much to the surprise of some planners, is not a new theme in planning. The U.S. Supreme Court has attempted to pound reasonableness into the thick heads of planners for decades. Many articles I have read recall decisions in cases such as Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City , and others.