vision2020
Gaol Setting
Visionaries: Councilwoman Linda Pall gave me a rational explanation of
city govt's position on limiting the transportation commission to
long-range aspects of city transportation requirements, based on the
existing ordinance and policy. It defines the commission's essentially
advisory nature and concerns for addressing the broader issues entailed in
urban transportation development, with some recommending initiatives on
specific street problems that affect people's community life. These
functions are certainly useful ones and, if effective at council
(legislative) level, could lead to overall traffic improvements and more
livable neighborhoods. My sincere thanks to Linda for her kind effort.
But the crux of the issue doesn't lie in these procedures; it's rather a
question of, (1) finding organizational arrangements that broaden and
strengthen the bases of govt. policy-making beyond the traditional
representative formats, which historically have NOT provided alternatives
to wasteful urban sprawl and downtown decay (2) empowering citizens'
commissions with more than bland recommendations void of muscle, and with
authority to conduct public FORUMS which can tap the talents and resources
of many other people (some members of the TC feel strongly about this); (3)
steering future communty development along wholesome and rewarding paths
that could well offer more alternatives to youth (the Aquatic Park is one
major step, but not without serious flaws), to families and seniors, to
downtown merchants; (4) truly reaching out to the whole community with good
information and means for feedback useful for goal-setting and
decision-making -- the city's handling of the Hamilton Grant is an
excellent example, in one specific instance, of public outreach designed to
give directions to govt. and associated organzations. Why can't such a
format work in other areas as well? Is private money open but taxpayers'
money closed?
Coming back to the TC, its current status prevents it from acting on
matters that are current and crucial to the way we go about urban
development. With US 95 about to "explode" at our front door, there are a
lot of ancillary problems associated with that, But with the present
set-up, piece-meal approaches are sure to dominate the decision-making
pattern, just like tree-cutting arose on the horizon without any citizen
input until people cried "wolf". Was that a result of goal-setting, or
what? And there have been and will be lots of other such incidences if we
fail to broaden the base and enrich the inputs. It comes down to asking,
what kind of neighborhoods, community, and services do we really want to
shape into the future? Will our childrena and grandchildren inherit
something better than what we inherited? How do we do this?
Who's out there, anyway? In good faith -- Ken M.
Back to TOC