O.K. Who's idea was this dumb meeting? I rarely see so many people wasting so much time. Oh, never mind. let's just say it was a bad idea. I left early. Someone else will need to detail the outcome or the history, if it's even worth doing. The situation is quite clearly at a starting point and history is likely to become mere baggage.
Three important groups - Fairhaven merchants, Fairhaven property owners and the Fairhaven Neighborhood Association - met today at the Fairhaven Library to try to iron out their differences over a draft neighborhood plan docketed for formal City consideration. Well, maybe it's docketed (if you get my point)...But it is a lot of Fairhavens!
The document in question was written by the Fairhaven Neighborhood Association. The Association is largely comprised of residents of the lower Fairhaven residential area who conventionally attend to city planning matters whle merchants and property owners of Fairhaven's commercial district attend to their own business, uptown. Unsurprisingly, the plan reflects the priorities of its authors but bothers the merchants and commercial property owners. They feel left out of the process and understand their business in citywide and regional terms more than as part of the Fairhaven Neighborhood Associaion. The upshot of their reaction is to want more planning autonomy, perhaps even to become their own neighborhood, leaving lower Fairhaven residents behind.
It was doomed from the start. No land use plan can succeed without input and dialog from all concerned. The Fairhaven business district is important to several surrounding neighborhoods. Leaving anyone out automatically disqualifies the process under law. It's not an option. Should Fairhaven neighbors have more say than neighbors from Happy Valley or South Hill? When I left, everyone was still trying to "be nice," meaning they were all mumbling half truths, afraid to express themselves under the misapprehension that quality process is a substitution for quality results. But the process was intrinsically flawed.
On the other hand, it was an excellent illustration of how any issue must have at least two legitimate positions. Both sides were right. The merchants and owners were correct in their objection to not having had more say. The Fairhaven Neighborhood Association was reasonable in wanting to push their work another step ahead. Who can blame them? Starting over on such a tedious and demanding effort has little appeal to those who have slogged through so far. Nevermind disparaging of any devilish details.
But the meeting was dumb because following City procedures would have easily ironed out the issues without pitting groups against one another. It's stupidly simple. There's no reason to build unnecessary fences or throw out the neighbors good work. The docketed(?) plan reflects the neighbors priorities. Stand it up for comment and have a go at it. Anyone can add their support or objections. Merchants and owners wanting better representation of their own ideas should get busy and start putting together an Urban Village Plan under the City code. Everbody do their work, not each other's.
In the end, integration of the effort and general compliance assurance is the Planning Department's job. They will be the ones recommending whether Fairhaven's business should be an Urban Village overlay or a distinct planning district. Functionally, it probably doesn't even matter. Merchants and owners must still do their work - and be more open to neighbors of any stripe than they complain Fairhaven neighbors weren't to them. The Planning Commission will recieve a staff report and recommendations, hold hearings and make their recommendations to the City Council. The Council will take additional testimony at hearing before adopting anything. There will be plenty of meetings without adding useless ones. Do your work! Invite your friends and foes.
I felt sorry for the City staff and three Councilmembers in attendance. I'll bet they didn't leave early. Hopefully they came away with an appreciation for better approaches to building community, a sense that it may be counterproductive to throw disputants into unmediated meetings without benefit of agreed agenda or access to procedural advice. I mean, who's idea was this travesty of democracy?
It's a huge opportunity for leadership.
Comments (0)
Vince Biciunas //Wed, Jun 09, 2010, 2:08 am
Tip,
My records show that the Fairhaven Neighborhood Plan Update was docketed by City Council on April 14, 2008. No wink winks about it. The vote was Bjornson, excused absence, Snapp, Knutson, Buchanan and Weiss, for, and Ryan and Borneman against. Please stick to the facts. Docketing happened.
Those who say now and said in the Fall of 2007 that they were not included in the process CHOSE not to attend the public meetings and participate in the process. It’s not because there was some nefarious plan to exclude anyone. Everyone was either too busy or too put out or didn’t care? I don’t know.
I do know that everyone was invited, by me, in multiple emails and public announcements. You were informed and invited, Tip, and received many of my emails addressed “Dear Fairhaven Neighbors and Friends” as were your neighborhood organization boards, via MNAC and CSN, with requests to spread the word. Those emails went to press contacts as well and public notices were printed.
Tuesday’s 6/8/2010 meeting might not have been your cup of tea, but was necessary due to the history. You were there and know what I mean. Until the Planning Department takes seriously the issue of planning for Fairhaven, as opposed to spot zoning, what else would you have Fairhaven Neighbors, the legitimate neighborhood organization, do? Sarcasm doesn’t seem to be the answer, for me.
Vince Biciunas, Board Member and former President of Fairhaven Neighbors
Tip Johnson //Wed, Jun 09, 2010, 9:49 am
Vince, you may want to reread the article after you finish recovering from the dumb meeting. It was not meant sarcastically, and says nothing to disparage the Fairhaven Neighbors’ work.
The issue of whether or not your plan is docketed means little to me. The draft is still the best effort of the neighbors and therefore a legitimate expression of their priorities. I agree, merchants and owners could have been more involved earlier. So what? They weren’t and now feel that their priorities have not been addressed. No plan can succeed on that basis, so what’s next?
What’s next is for the merchants and owners to the work they have so far avoided. That’s why the meeting was dumb. No matter what happens to the docketed draft, their work will need to be integrated, through work sessions and all the hearings and meetings any plans must survive.
The meeting needlessly hung the parties out to swing in the wind and take gratuitous whackings from each other. That’s not productive. A mediator should have been involved to prepare an agenda and facilitate any such meeting. But the meeting was unnecessary, unlikely to mend any rifts and probably made feelings worse. That’s bad planning.
Vince Biciunas //Wed, Jun 09, 2010, 10:09 am
Tip,
I don’t think the meeting made anything worse. I think we all just woke up and might be ready to work on it again.
Maybe this time, the city will be able to step forward and put in the professional time it takes to get it done.
We were told back in 2008 that we’d have to wait for resources to become available. So maybe with this economic slowdown, planners can make the time needed. I can only hope. And I also hope the work on the docketed plan wasn’t in vain.
The Dumbest Meeting Ever
Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 11:31 pm // Tip Johnson
O.K. Who's idea was this dumb meeting? I rarely see so many people wasting so much time. Oh, never mind. let's just say it was a bad idea. I left early. Someone else will need to detail the outcome or the history, if it's even worth doing. The situation is quite clearly at a starting point and history is likely to become mere baggage.
Three important groups - Fairhaven merchants, Fairhaven property owners and the Fairhaven Neighborhood Association - met today at the Fairhaven Library to try to iron out their differences over a draft neighborhood plan docketed for formal City consideration. Well, maybe it's docketed (if you get my point)...But it is a lot of Fairhavens!
The document in question was written by the Fairhaven Neighborhood Association. The Association is largely comprised of residents of the lower Fairhaven residential area who conventionally attend to city planning matters whle merchants and property owners of Fairhaven's commercial district attend to their own business, uptown. Unsurprisingly, the plan reflects the priorities of its authors but bothers the merchants and commercial property owners. They feel left out of the process and understand their business in citywide and regional terms more than as part of the Fairhaven Neighborhood Associaion. The upshot of their reaction is to want more planning autonomy, perhaps even to become their own neighborhood, leaving lower Fairhaven residents behind.
It was doomed from the start. No land use plan can succeed without input and dialog from all concerned. The Fairhaven business district is important to several surrounding neighborhoods. Leaving anyone out automatically disqualifies the process under law. It's not an option. Should Fairhaven neighbors have more say than neighbors from Happy Valley or South Hill? When I left, everyone was still trying to "be nice," meaning they were all mumbling half truths, afraid to express themselves under the misapprehension that quality process is a substitution for quality results. But the process was intrinsically flawed.
On the other hand, it was an excellent illustration of how any issue must have at least two legitimate positions. Both sides were right. The merchants and owners were correct in their objection to not having had more say. The Fairhaven Neighborhood Association was reasonable in wanting to push their work another step ahead. Who can blame them? Starting over on such a tedious and demanding effort has little appeal to those who have slogged through so far. Nevermind disparaging of any devilish details.
But the meeting was dumb because following City procedures would have easily ironed out the issues without pitting groups against one another. It's stupidly simple. There's no reason to build unnecessary fences or throw out the neighbors good work. The docketed(?) plan reflects the neighbors priorities. Stand it up for comment and have a go at it. Anyone can add their support or objections. Merchants and owners wanting better representation of their own ideas should get busy and start putting together an Urban Village Plan under the City code. Everbody do their work, not each other's.
In the end, integration of the effort and general compliance assurance is the Planning Department's job. They will be the ones recommending whether Fairhaven's business should be an Urban Village overlay or a distinct planning district. Functionally, it probably doesn't even matter. Merchants and owners must still do their work - and be more open to neighbors of any stripe than they complain Fairhaven neighbors weren't to them. The Planning Commission will recieve a staff report and recommendations, hold hearings and make their recommendations to the City Council. The Council will take additional testimony at hearing before adopting anything. There will be plenty of meetings without adding useless ones. Do your work! Invite your friends and foes.
I felt sorry for the City staff and three Councilmembers in attendance. I'll bet they didn't leave early. Hopefully they came away with an appreciation for better approaches to building community, a sense that it may be counterproductive to throw disputants into unmediated meetings without benefit of agreed agenda or access to procedural advice. I mean, who's idea was this travesty of democracy?
It's a huge opportunity for leadership.
Vince Biciunas // Wed, Jun 09, 2010, 2:08 am
Tip,
My records show that the Fairhaven Neighborhood Plan Update was docketed by City Council on April 14, 2008. No wink winks about it. The vote was Bjornson, excused absence, Snapp, Knutson, Buchanan and Weiss, for, and Ryan and Borneman against. Please stick to the facts. Docketing happened.
Those who say now and said in the Fall of 2007 that they were not included in the process CHOSE not to attend the public meetings and participate in the process. It’s not because there was some nefarious plan to exclude anyone. Everyone was either too busy or too put out or didn’t care? I don’t know.
I do know that everyone was invited, by me, in multiple emails and public announcements. You were informed and invited, Tip, and received many of my emails addressed “Dear Fairhaven Neighbors and Friends” as were your neighborhood organization boards, via MNAC and CSN, with requests to spread the word. Those emails went to press contacts as well and public notices were printed.
Tuesday’s 6/8/2010 meeting might not have been your cup of tea, but was necessary due to the history. You were there and know what I mean. Until the Planning Department takes seriously the issue of planning for Fairhaven, as opposed to spot zoning, what else would you have Fairhaven Neighbors, the legitimate neighborhood organization, do? Sarcasm doesn’t seem to be the answer, for me.
Vince Biciunas, Board Member and former President of Fairhaven Neighbors
Tip Johnson // Wed, Jun 09, 2010, 9:49 am
Vince, you may want to reread the article after you finish recovering from the dumb meeting. It was not meant sarcastically, and says nothing to disparage the Fairhaven Neighbors’ work.
The issue of whether or not your plan is docketed means little to me. The draft is still the best effort of the neighbors and therefore a legitimate expression of their priorities. I agree, merchants and owners could have been more involved earlier. So what? They weren’t and now feel that their priorities have not been addressed. No plan can succeed on that basis, so what’s next?
What’s next is for the merchants and owners to the work they have so far avoided. That’s why the meeting was dumb. No matter what happens to the docketed draft, their work will need to be integrated, through work sessions and all the hearings and meetings any plans must survive.
The meeting needlessly hung the parties out to swing in the wind and take gratuitous whackings from each other. That’s not productive. A mediator should have been involved to prepare an agenda and facilitate any such meeting. But the meeting was unnecessary, unlikely to mend any rifts and probably made feelings worse. That’s bad planning.
Vince Biciunas // Wed, Jun 09, 2010, 10:09 am
Tip,
I don’t think the meeting made anything worse. I think we all just woke up and might be ready to work on it again.
Maybe this time, the city will be able to step forward and put in the professional time it takes to get it done.
We were told back in 2008 that we’d have to wait for resources to become available. So maybe with this economic slowdown, planners can make the time needed. I can only hope. And I also hope the work on the docketed plan wasn’t in vain.