Let the public speak
A thought I had after tonight’s Rockwood Park development meeting is that the citizens must be allowed to speak.
It’s great for the City and consultants to moderate meetings, but citizens voices shouldn’t be drowned out by the monologues of councilors (one who shut down a citizen after she asked him a question during his speech).
Also, consultants should facilitate and listen, not attempt to steer conversations in the way they think they should go – one chap from ADI really seemed anxious to turn people’s calls for better lighting in parking areas into ideas about building residential clusters around parking lots.
Luckily people spoke with a united voice tonight, and it will be hard for councilors to ignore them.
Also lucky is the fact that the outspoken councilor seemed to agree with the people – so even if he’d rather talk than listen, he’s going down a path that would please many of the people who showed up to the Lily Lake Pavilion this evening.
8 comments:
Remember, the meeting WAS about development (or not) of the park, not lighting. Consultants needs to facilitate discussions and steer the audience to what is relevant. Otherwise, meetings quickly become bitch sessions about everything that bugs a person about a certain topic. This is not a master planning excercise but a specific study on development!
Time is limited in these consultation sessions and consultants are expensive -- I'd rather focus on the issues at hand and be constructive rather than be distracted by irrelevant issues that steer discussions down an unrelated avenue. Otherwise, the consultant gets nothing of value from the sessions to use in the report.
What you speak against is exactly what the City is paying the consultants for -- to facilitate a discussion on PARK DEVELOPMENT! Without this, the consultant is left to make their own conclusions that may or may not reflect "the public's wishes" because the public squandered their opportunity by talking about lighting! This exercise is not a master plan -- its a specific study on development!
It is never wise to just let the public rant without moderation if you have a very specific purpose -- its not that they don't have important things to say, its just not the right venue for most of it.
Development isn't just buildings - lighting and maintenance of recreational green space is a development issue.
I agree that moderation is neccesary - otherwise the meeting could have been an episode of Talk of the Town.
Still, park development (or as you put it PARK DEVELOPMENT) includes issues around how people want the park developed. People want a safe, diverse park. They (they being the folks I met last night) want the park developed minimally, with a few parking and access areas that are safe.
I'll follow up on that by saying this - the planners from ADI were asking "would this be okay?"
They should ask these questions.
As someone who is not trained in running public meetings I'm not sure how to best ask these questions, but the folks running any meetings should be careful to not only listen but to appear to listen.
If participants leave feeling they were not heard, I don't think a meeting could be deemed fully successful.
One other thought, Nayan from the City should be commended for his efforts to deliver the information he had clearly and effectively. While he seemed to be the person taking the most heated questions/comments, I was comfortable with the way he presented what he knew.
You're absolutely right -- development IS more than just buildings and perhaps I should have been a little clearer in my earlier response. Yesterday's consultation session was less about development in that broad sense, but development in the specific sense -- brought to the forefront recently by specific development proposals by developers on city-owned land bordering the park. So truly, the session was intended to discuss land use -- what specific uses do we want along Sandy Point Road and Rockwood Park to ensure proper development.
Single-family residential development is a use. High density residential development is a use. Park land is also a perfectly suitable use. Lighting, however, is not a use. Discussing lighting and casual surveillance provided by clusters of residential development takes the kernel of an idea provided by the public (lighting and security) and refocuses the conversation back to development as a function of land use. Not only are we discussing just a need for lighting and security, the conversation is now focused on how land use and development can provide those desired elements. This is either a good thing or a bad thing -- now, discuss amongst yourselves.
Such is the purpose of a consultant and facilitator whether or not the perception of their comments is understood or not. Its a thankless job -- always the whipping horse.
My opinions on what you've brought out of the discussion would be this. Single Family residences are adjacent Sheldon Point Beach at Irving Nature Park. I believe the residences were there before the developed trail parking lot. I do not feel safer because residences are there.
The homes make me feel like an interloper. While some owners adjacent a park may be great neighbours and stewards of a park, there is no guarantee that they will be welcoming of park users. While they may have a phone to call 911 on, I feel the trade off (where they provide safety in exchange for owning private land near a park) is too great.
Another example that comes to mind is the Fire Station near the entrance of Mud Lake in Quispamsis. While having emergency services professionals near the entrance of the park would likely improve safety, the atmosphere of escape and exploration seems lessened knowing that fire trucks may go blasting out of the park while you bird watch.
A third example I would bring up is the residential (multi and single family) near Forest Hills schools and recreational area. This 'park' was a product of developing a subdivision around it. While the residential properties do provide a watchful eye over the ball fields and trails, this type of park serves a purpose different than the western edge of Rockwood Park. I think a family recreation area is better off with neighbours, but don't think this helps other segments of the population - those who want to enjoy a natural environment in isolation.
While building single family homes near a park would create value for certain people, leaving the park as is allows for value for others. The value created my a minimally developed green space is probably harder to measure as cash wouldn't change hands, but having an assets such as the western fringe of Rockwood Park is an attractive feature for some residents and could well lead to a greater willingness to pay for properties near, but not on the park.
I don't disagree at all with the points you've made -- very well put, in fact, and you didn't find the need to drone on about lighting either! This is exactly the type of discussion that I'm sure the consultant was trying to suss out with his comments.
Does this mean I am moderating now?
Be sure to e-mail these comments over to ADI!
I'm sure this blog would be a lot more thoughful and clear if there was a moderator.
Those who believe in "Sullivan's Travels," should also believe that the public are not a bunch of Yahoos...
Politicians need to "shut-up" and listen for a change (even if they agree with you)...
Post a Comment