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.