The PLACER Framework
Commercial development decisions — whether a grocery store, a bank branch, a medical clinic, or a mixed-use project — come down to six factors. Developers, lenders, and operators evaluate every site against them. The PLACER framework organizes those factors into a structure that a community team can study, document, and present to anyone considering investment in their area.
A completed PLACER profile is the kind of document that a grocery operator, a developer, a bank, or a grant reviewer would use to evaluate an opportunity.
Who lives here? Age, income, household size, education, employment. How many people are within 5, 10, and 15 minutes of the site? Are they growing, shrinking, or shifting? What do they spend money on, and where do they spend it? Schools are an important factor for many employers and families evaluating a location, and school quality, enrollment, and proximity are part of the People profile.
Where is the site relative to the city, the region, the corridor? What are the physical characteristics — topography, lot size, frontage, orientation? What surrounds it?
How do people get there? Traffic counts, road classification, intersection quality, turn lanes, transit routes, pedestrian and bicycle access. How visible is the site from the road?
What similar businesses or services already exist in the trade area? Where are the gaps? What categories are missing relative to the population? Where are residents going outside the area to get things they need?
What are the land costs, lease rates, construction costs, tax structure? What is the income profile of the trade area? What does the leakage analysis show — how much spending is leaving the area that could be captured locally?
What is the zoning? What are the floodplain designations? What permits and approvals are required? What are the insurance implications? What infrastructure (water, sewer, stormwater) is in place or needs extension?
Ward 2 Program
Councilman Eric Boney took office in Ward 2 in July 2025. A preliminary investigation — trade area analysis, housing inventory, corridor assessment, funding strategy — would give Ward 2 a foundation for grant applications and development conversations.
The concept: 20 Ward 2 stakeholders (residents, realtors, bankers, business owners, community leaders) go through an 8-session applied planning course built around the PLACER site evaluation framework. They collect the data, walk the corridors, survey the neighbors, and compile the results into a Ward 2 Preliminary Investigation Report.
Three potential outputs: a professional report the city can use, 20 people trained in community planning methodology, and a portable program structure that could work in other communities.
Ward 2 sits along the Leaf River corridor. It includes William Carey University, Chain Park, the new bridge to Petal, and large areas of floodplain with limited current use and significant development constraints.
The questions that drive grant applications and development proposals start here. What does the trade area look like? What is the housing stock condition? Where are the service gaps? What does the commercial corridor need to attract investment? Is there enough market demand to support a grocery? What funding sources match Ward 2's needs?
That kind of data feeds grant applications, development proposals, and conversations with banks and state agencies.
Consultant pricing for comparable corridor baseline studies often falls in a mid-five-figure range, varying by scope and data needs. The data collection, surveys, corridor documentation, and demographic compilation are applied fieldwork that a structured community team can do with professional guidance and university support.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Format | 8 sessions over 10 weeks (classroom + fieldwork) |
| Participants | 20 people from Ward 2 and surrounding area |
| Eligibility | Residents, realtors, bankers, nonprofit staff, business owners, church leaders, students |
| Time commitment | Approximately 6 to 8 hours per week including sessions and fieldwork |
| Stipend | $1,000 per participant, paid upon completion with a minimum participation threshold (e.g., 6 of 8 sessions attended, fieldwork submitted). Stipends are participant support for training and documented fieldwork, not wages for employment. |
| Certificate | Certificate of Completion in Community Planning, issued by the academic partner |
| Deliverable | Ward 2 PLACER Profile and Preliminary Investigation Report — grant-supportive (formatted for common application requirements: baseline conditions, maps, citations, needs statement, and project logic) |
This is a short, applied planning practicum designed to produce a baseline, citable Ward 2 PLACER Profile and Preliminary Investigation Report. The work focuses on field documentation, market and context data, and a funding alignment matrix that can support informed discussions with the City, lenders, operators, and grant programs. Any subsequent design, entitlement, engineering, or project delivery would be a separate phase led by the appropriate parties under their normal standards and approvals.
All resident surveys are voluntary and anonymous. No names or addresses are recorded unless the participant consents in writing.
Survey forms are stored securely by the program administrator and not published in raw form.
Photographs of public corridors and building exteriors are taken from public rights-of-way. No interior photographs without owner permission.
GPS-tagged observations are summarized at the block or zone level in the published report. Partner access to any more granular working files, if needed, would be controlled and handled under the same privacy and publication review process.
The final report could be published in a public-facing version, subject to City and partner review, with any sensitive survey details kept private.
Data use rights: the City and program partners receive nonexclusive rights to use the compiled report and aggregated datasets for planning and grant purposes. Raw survey forms remain confidential to the program administrator and are not published. Participants are credited as contributing investigators and retain rights to their personal materials.
A team of 20 drawn from different backgrounds:
| Role | Count |
|---|---|
| Ward 2 residents (renters and homeowners, range of ages) | 8 to 10 |
| Realtors working the Hattiesburg market | 2 to 3 |
| Bankers or lending officers | 2 to 3 |
| Small business owners | 2 to 3 |
| Church or community organization leaders | 2 to 3 |
| College or university students | 1 to 2 |
The banker sees the lending gap, the realtor sees the housing stock, the resident sees the daily reality, the church leader sees the social infrastructure. That all goes into one report.
Syllabus
Introduce the team, the project, and the framework.
What community planning looks like and what we're building together. The OECD Better Life Index as context (11 dimensions of quality of life). Ward 2 orientation: geography, boundaries, landmarks, river corridor, bridge to Petal. The PLACER framework: six factors that drive commercial and development decisions. How a grocery operator, a developer, or a grant reviewer reads a site profile. Team formation: assign working groups by PLACER element. Data handling and consent overview.
Each participant maps their own daily pattern. Where do they shop, eat, bank, get healthcare, recreate? Where do they leave Ward 2? This is the first data point in the leakage analysis.
PLACER element: P
Census and ACS (American Community Survey) data: population, age, income, household size, education, employment. School data: enrollment, ratings, proximity, school-age population — a key factor for employers, retailers, and families evaluating a location. How to read a census tract profile. Drive-time mapping: who lives within 5, 10, and 15 minutes of the corridor. What demographic data tells a developer or retailer about market potential. How to design and conduct a resident survey (approach, questions, recording, consent). Survey design workshop: draft the Ward 2 resident survey as a group.
Begin resident survey deployment, 10 surveys per team member over the following week. Each survey captures where people shop, what they need, what's missing.
PLACER elements: L and A
Morning: Teams deploy to assigned corridor zones with survey forms, cameras, and maps. Location documentation: lot characteristics, frontage, orientation, surrounding uses. Housing condition block by block (exterior assessment: good / fair / poor / vacant / demolished). Access documentation: traffic counts (MDOT data, AADT — Annual Average Daily Traffic), road classification, intersection quality, turn lanes, pedestrian and bicycle access. Visibility assessment: what can you see from the road? Signage conditions. Infrastructure: sidewalks, drainage, lighting, road condition. Afternoon: Reconvene, compile notes, enter data into shared spreadsheet.
Complete zone documentation and photography. GPS-tag all observations.
PLACER elements: C and E
Existing business inventory: what's in the corridor now, by NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) category. Windshield survey results compiled: occupied, vacant, for sale, condition. Gap analysis: what categories are missing relative to the population? Leakage analysis: where Ward 2 dollars go outside the district (resident survey data). How a grocery operator evaluates a site: population density, income, competition, traffic. Land costs, lease rates, tax structure in the corridor. Comparable corridor developments in other Mississippi cities.
Complete remaining resident surveys. Each team researches one comparable corridor development and prepares a one-page summary. Teams compile the competition inventory for their assigned zones.
PLACER element: R
Zoning: what's allowed, what requires variance, what's nonconforming. Floodplain: FEMA maps, AE zones, floodway, base flood elevation. Hattiesburg rainfall context (among the highest annual totals in Mississippi). How flooding affects property values, insurance costs, and development feasibility. No-Rise certification and what it means for floodway development. Stormwater and green infrastructure: rain gardens, bioswales, permeable surfaces. Urban agriculture in flood-adjacent areas. Utilities: water, sewer, stormwater capacity and extension requirements. Field visit to flood-affected areas and potential green infrastructure sites.
Teams map flood-prone areas and zoning classifications in their zones. Identify regulatory constraints and opportunities.
Connecting the data to funding sources.
How federal assistance programs are organized (Assistance Listings, formerly CFDA — Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance). Programs relevant to Ward 2: CDBG, HOME, ESG, USDA Community Facilities, EPA green infrastructure, FEMA resilience, DOE energy. Reading a NOFO (Notice of Funding Opportunity). What "grant-supportive" means: the data package that reduces friction in applications. State and local sources: Mississippi Development Authority, CDFIs (Community Development Financial Institutions). CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) motivation: how banks get credit for community investment. Group exercise: match each PLACER finding to at least one funding source.
Each team identifies three grant matches for their PLACER element and writes a half-page justification for each.
Compile fieldwork into a single document.
Report structure: one section per PLACER element, plus funding strategy matrix. Teams compile their sections with data tables, maps, photographs, and sourced citations. Cross-team review: each team presents, others ask questions and identify gaps. Data quality check: sourcing, citations, verification. Maps and visuals: turning raw data into readable graphics. Plain-language writing: factual presentation, no jargon.
Each team delivers final draft of their section.
Present findings and receive certificates.
Teams present the completed Ward 2 PLACER Profile and Preliminary Investigation Report. Invited audience: Councilman Boney, city planning staff, university faculty, community members. Q&A and community feedback. Certificate of Completion ceremony.
1. Ward 2 PLACER Profile and Preliminary Investigation Report
One section per PLACER element: People, Location, Access, Competition, Economics, Regulation. Plus a funding alignment matrix connecting documented conditions to plausible program fits. Data points sourced and cited. Formatted for common grant application requirements.
2. Twenty Trained Community Planners
Participants complete 30+ hours of instruction and applied fieldwork using the PLACER framework: demographics, site evaluation, market analysis, regulatory analysis, funding identification, report compilation.
3. Certificate of Completion in Community Planning
Issued by the academic partner. Recognizes applied fieldwork and planning methodology training.
Comparable Programs
Several cities run programs that train residents and community leaders in planning, zoning, and neighborhood development. These vary in structure and scope, but share a common model: short-course format, open to non-professionals, certificate upon completion, and practical application to real neighborhood conditions.
Run by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission since 2010. Eight-week course, offered every spring and fall, 30 participants per cohort. Covers zoning, development review, community organizing, and the city's comprehensive plan (Philadelphia 2035). Participants complete core classes, electives, and a final project to earn a Citizen Planner Certificate of Completion. Over 700 graduates from more than 130 neighborhoods. Cost is on a sliding scale (up to $300). Alumni have gone on to form civic associations, nonprofits, RCOs, and zoning committees. CPI has become a model that other cities have adopted. APA published a how-to guide based on the program in 2023 (PAS Report 605).
Run through Atlanta's Neighborhood Planning Unit (NPU) system since 2022. Open to residents, business owners, and city employees. Requires completing classes across four tracks: Community Leadership, Planning, Civic Participation, and Community Development within two years. Courses cover zoning fundamentals, the legislative process, public meetings, and development tools. Designed for community leaders motivated to facilitate neighborhood change. Currently under review for AICP continuing education credits.
Launched December 2025 by the Montgomery County Planning Department. Free online course, 10 mobile-friendly modules (30-45 minutes each) covering development review and master planning. Available in English, Spanish, and Mandarin. Piloted with 48 graduates in mid-2025 from an initial interest pool of over 640 residents. Won an Award of Merit from APA and the National Association of County Planners in the Grassroots Initiative category in January 2026. Includes in-person sessions with subject matter experts.
Run by Michigan State University Extension. Six-session evening course for community leaders, decision-makers, and residents. Covers planning and zoning fundamentals with training led by MSU faculty, professional planners, and attorneys. $250 per participant (group discounts available). Participants who complete all six sessions receive a Citizen Planner Certificate of Completion. Offered in partnership with city government (hosted at Muskegon City Hall).
Published August 2023 by the American Planning Association. A step-by-step guide to creating, managing, and growing a community planning academy program. Based on 13 years of experience from the Philadelphia CPI. Covers goal-setting, curriculum development, instructor selection, alumni engagement, and program evaluation. Notes that planning academies have shifted from pure education to capacity-building, producing trusted partners in planning at every level of the community.
Short-course format (6 to 10 sessions). Open to residents and community stakeholders, not just professionals. Certificate of completion upon finishing the course. Topics typically include zoning, development, demographics, community engagement, and how planning decisions get made. Many are sponsored or co-sponsored by city planning departments. Alumni networks provide ongoing engagement after graduation. Costs range from free to $300; some offer stipends or sliding-scale fees.
The Ward 2 concept shares the short-course and certificate structure with these programs. It differs in two ways: (1) it is organized around a specific site evaluation framework (PLACER) rather than general planning education, and (2) the fieldwork produces a single, defined deliverable — a Ward 2 PLACER Profile and Preliminary Investigation Report — rather than individual projects or general knowledge. Participants are compensated with a $1,000 stipend for applied fieldwork that contributes directly to that report.
Budget & Funding
| Item | Estimate |
|---|---|
| NSG instruction and program management (10 weeks) | $15,000 |
| Participant stipends (20 x $1,000) | $20,000 |
| GIS / mapping support | $8,000 |
| Materials, printing, supplies | $1,500 |
| Field transportation | $1,000 |
| Academic partner coordination and certificate administration | $3,000 |
| Report production, web publication, design, mapping | $3,500 |
| Total | $52,000 |
City of Hattiesburg — Ward 2 discretionary budget, planning department allocation, or council action
CDBG Planning/Technical Assistance — eligible use of the city's annual CDBG allocation
CRA-motivated bank sponsorship — Hancock Whitney, Trustmark, or other local institutions
Academic partner internal grants — community engagement or service-learning funding
Mississippi Development Authority — community development capacity building
Foundation grants — Phil Hardin Foundation, Community Foundation of South Mississippi
AmeriCorps / VISTA — community capacity building
Sources can be combined. $52,000 is within range of a single sponsor.
Partners
City of Hattiesburg Planning Department — If the City finds it useful, the Planning Department could be a co-sponsor to improve data access, alignment with city priorities, and continuity.
North Star Group Inc. — Curriculum design, instruction, fieldwork supervision, report compilation and quality control.
Academic Partner (TBD) — Academic oversight, certificate issuance, student participation, faculty co-instruction, GIS and data resources.
GIS / Mapping Support — Corridor maps, exhibits, and technical compilation (non-stamped work; mapping and exhibits only unless separately contracted). Chris Johnson (Environmental Management) is familiar with the Ward 2 corridor and is one possible mapping resource; comparable support could also be provided through City or academic GIS capacity.
Councilman Eric Boney, Ward 2 — Community anchor. Recruitment, civic legitimacy, connection to city government.
The final report would carry formal authorship: North Star Group, City of Hattiesburg Planning Department, and the academic partner, in collaboration with the participant team as contributing investigators. GIS / mapping consultant provides technical exhibits.
A public-facing version could be published, subject to City and partner review, with any sensitive survey details kept private. Partners would approve final language and publication format.
The syllabus is designed to be portable. After Ward 2, the same structure could deploy with a local academic partner in other communities. If partners find the baseline useful, it could set up follow-on options such as targeted corridor recruitment packages, site-specific feasibility work, or a broader planning effort.
These are areas where partner input would shape the final program:
Does the City Planning Department see value in co-sponsoring, and if so, what level of involvement?
Which academic institution is the best fit for certificate issuance and student participation?
What GIS and mapping resources are already available through the City or academic partner?
What is the preferred publication and review process for the final report?
What funding path or combination makes sense given current budgets and grant cycles?
What is the preferred timeline for launch?
Draft prepared by North Star Group Inc., March 2026
For discussion. Program details subject to refinement in collaboration with partners.
Named programs and cost ranges cited as illustrative examples.