There is a police interview/interrogation tactic that we have all seen on TV and in movies for years now. It involves keeping the interviewees separated from one another so that one doesn't know what the other is saying because they may start to think collectively in their responses. I appreciate this approach for investigative purposes but I do not understand why it would be used in a process intended to build consensus and good will.
In Saint John we saw this tactic used last week in what the City called a "public consultation process". Attendees were presented with the plans for the development of the area north of Union Street that will include a justice complex and police station. Once it was finished, a City/Vision 2015 official shut down questions and referred people to participate in private discussions and to complete and submit 5-point surveys on paper or online. In effect, we were separated from one another so that no one could know what others were saying or thinking and thus prevented from thinking collectively and coming to a consensus on what we want to see in this development.
It turns out that I don't like the plans that I saw last week but I submitted my survey online this week and I have shared my views with others privately. However, my main concerns are about the consultation process in this issue and in future issues. What I want more than anything for my city is for us to stop fighting. I want an open and transparent process that leads us to think and act collectively to build the city that we all want to live in. I will always share my views on my vision for the city with friends and family and others who can help grow our community. And if we had a process that empowered and consulted us all in a real way and it still doesn't develop the way I want it to, I can live with that.
This is not the process we have now and it is not the process that has been given to us in Vision 2015, against its promises.
Recently there was a news report released that said that Saint John is the happiest city in Canada. I believe it. We have a great city with great people that support each other and work hard to enjoy a good life. What we don't have is a community that stands up for itself and perhaps it is because we have been put in our place so often and left feeling that we have no say in how our community grows that we have stopped caring and just focus on the day-to-day activities that make us happy. In this sense, maybe our happiness is more like that found in Papua New Guinea than it is like Northern Europeans who also score high on this measure but have a high level of public consultation.
I want a permanent, required process overriding major decisions in City Hall that consults with us and keeps us from fighting our municipal managers, leaders and each other. I want to stop being bullied and I want us all to be engaged in one or more of many public consultation processes that have been used with great success for years in cities all over the world.
I don't think we have bad people in City Hall. The people I disagree with on this issue are very nice people, I just believe they don't get it. They don't understand what public engagement really is, they don't believe a city can be governed by consensus, and they don't want the hard work they have invested in their plans to be spoiled by those of us who do not make a living running a city.
But we live here. Who is better qualified to determine our future?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Is Saint John Too Happy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Eloquently said, unfortunately your points need to be articulated by more people who feel the same way and they need to be heard. Like many times before, too many people in SJ fear for their positions or reputations and remain silent or obscure their opinions by only posting on obscure blogs or presenting their ideas over coffee to a select few. More activism and a clear and LOUD articulation of ideas will effect change. More people need to step away from their blogging and coffee chats -- imagine if someone stood up at the "consultation" meeting and refused to be segregated into groups (in order to be divided and conquered)?
Jeff - very well said. I agree with the comments from ronjroy.com in that people need to articulate their views more openly. Unfortunately press seems to favour voters, selling papers and/or controversy rather than presenting the 'voice of the people.'
People truly need to stand up for what they believe; and parties in power need to develop a spine and actually listen to 'their people' rather than segrating the masses to dilute opinion.
it is music to my ears....a real conversation. It is not the media's job to fight our case so lets not put too much on their shoulders. Maybe we hide behind the media too much? We all keep using the phrase "the public". If we truely want to engage and represent "the public" we have to define them. As I see it the public is all ages,sexes,income levels,literacy levels. At present, the only people that are formally consulted in this city are middle to upper income, property owners usually male. Community activists, like us, carry on an intellectual debate and rely heavily on the newspaper. We are letting our methods and approach be defined by the same narrow "old boys club". By definition we are also excluding students, tenants, young mothers and anyone who can not or does not read the paper. Who is willing to break this cycle and let some refreshing inclusive thinking take place?
Post a Comment