One thing that makes this sound "old-fationed communist" etc. is the
(oblique) references to people as "citizens" .aka comrades et.all. Maybe
it would be useful to lighten up a bit on the retoric? Basically what
I see of vision2020 is a group of folks that want to speak out, to provide
a way to get diverse views expressed, heard, and discussed. I've thought
before that some of the comments may turn some folks off, you (we) should
work to encourage diverse views/discussions cuz we all have to live here
together and we all have to live within the bounds.....we just need to
strech the bounds occationally....
johnt
(ps. it would be MUCH easier to deal with this via a news reader rather than
e-mail. there are too many threads to easily follow the discussions here....)
====comments below============
REPLY MESSAGE TO DAN FIRAC IN ROMANIA:
FROM BILL LONDON, MOSCOW VISION 2020 MEMBER
In your message of January 24, you described the goals for our citizen
group as "communistic" which I assume means reeking of central planning,
the heavy hand of government, and all that old-fashioned stuff.
<<maybe a bad assumption. Maybe its just our choice of words and phrases
which did the implication?
On the contrary, I believe that what we are all about is the
exact opposite. We are trying to involve our fellow citizens in deciding
their own future. What could be more democratic?
It seems to me that what we have now could be described as all
that old-fashioned planning and control by an elite group. The core
decision-makers (local bureaucrats, members of the planning commission,
elected officials, and those with a vested interest in development)
appear to me to act in a vacuum, too often independent of the wishes or
needs of the citizens.
<<
Others might say that the structure in place DOES reflect the issues and
concerns of those who participated in setting it up. Its just that the
level of participation was WAY to small from certain of the "interest" groups.
v2020 should raise that participation across the board
>>
I think that most of the residents of this area
do not feel that they can readily communicate their opinions to this
decision-making group. Public input is too often a sham, too little and
too late.
<<
I think that its basically to "burdensom" to get the comments in to the
decision makers in time. It takes a "watchdog" approach like Kenton is doing
to insure that notification/participation gets reved up.
>>
Under our present system, we do not involve the people in the
initial envisioning process which directs the planning. Instead, we allow
comment at the end of the process, a yes or no statement in a public
forum, which is not conducive to citizen involvement nor a widespread
feeling of shared decision-making.
<<
This one is RIGHT ON. By the time the normal folks get a chance to comment,
its often too late. Opening up the initial process is a right direction, the
trouble is, it requires the people doing it to do MUCH MORE work, which they
would greatly like to avoid. We just have to make it easier for them....
>>
We advocate a community-based planning effort that gives all
residents a sense of real "ownership" of the future and the planning
process.
<< now THIS one sounds like a "cooperative" kind of statement....>>
johnt
================================================================
> Dear Priscilla,
>
> Your message is rather communist !
>
> *********************************
> * Firac Daniel L.I.L.Caragiale *
> * danf@lphilc.sfos.ro *
> * Romania *
> *********************************
>