Last week local blogger and leadership consultant John Sarvay wrote a guest column about the ongoing charette (that’s a fancy word for workshop) regarding the city’s master plan for downtown. He’s been following up with reports from the field on his blog, Buttermilk & Molasses.
For a rather different take on the subject, check out Save Richmond.
Another skeptic: City lawyer Mike Sarahan, who writes in an e-mail that he would call the event “a ‘charade’ instead of a charette”:
I am so tired of going to planning and “visioning” meetings that are attended and run by white, relatively affluent people saying what’s good for the City. Yesterday about 3.5% of the overall attendance was Black. . . . About 200 people were there and I counted 7 Black people. I asked at one point whether anybody from the planning group or the audience noticed that there was no significant representation from the Black community. That was considered a rhetorical question, I guess, because I did not get a response from anybody.
The amazing thing about this meeting yesterday was that it had no context or constraints. In other words, it had no basis in reality. People dreamed up projects and just wrote them on the board, which in this case was a map of Downtown. By the end of the reports from each small group (you know the routine) you could sum it all in this way: “Build another Disney World; call it the ‘City of the 21st Century’; and send the bill to the City.“
If this was all just a waste of time anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it. There are plenty of government meetings and public input process that are wastes of time. The thing that is so bad here, though, is that some points talked about might be considered or written up as “consensus” points from the public. How do you have a “consensus” point from the public when most of the affected public wasn’t there and never heard about it in the first place.
Three very different perspectives from three different sources—all of whom, obviously, care passionately about the city and want it to thrive. The fact that all of them mean well doesn’t make all of them right on all points. For that matter, meaning well doesn’t make any of them right on any point.* But by the same token, the fact that one or more of them might not be right on every detail doesn’t mean they don’t mean well, either.
___________
* Is meaning well entirely independent of being correct about something? Perhaps it depends on the issue. People who mean well can inflict terrible harm, sometimes intentionally (see “Cultural Revolution”), sometimes not (see “culture of dependency”). But is malice more likely to produce an inaccurate interpretation of events than false hope or utopian ambition? Beats me—just wondering aloud. . .
Reader Comments:
I know I don’t go downtown more often because it is too hard to get around and find parking.
I know why I do get lured downtown, and that is things I can not otherwise find in suburbia.
I know what is wrong with a charette. That is what lawyer Sarahan and the “Buttermilk” blogger have said, to quote SaveRichmond:
“...Ah, but we do know what hasn’t worked real well for Richmond. Putting people in charge who don’t know what they are doing…“ (says it all)
I know what is right about the charette, interesting ideas:
- connecting the riverfront parks and keeping them green
- light rail commuter lines
- Covering the expressway is an intriguing idea. They considered putting day care centers over the L.A. freeways to use the newly found “land”, but balked at the thought of exposing children to carbon monoxide fumes from the auto exhausts below.
I know why urbanites are underrepresented in planning. Richmond desperately needs more tax base. The way to get this is to cater to the young urban professionals who will pay taxes that support the poor urban blacks who need the services they currently don’t get. I note the new beautification of Hull Street will do zilch for the blight surrounding Hull Street in all directions, but it will provide money, and maybe even a few jobs, and for a while at least, clean up the empty wine bottles and drug paraphenalia. A worthy goal.
Vastly more important than white elephant commercial, arts or sports venues, or City Council junkets, not that we will name names for fear of incriminating the usual suspects.
A vision for Richmond has been studied at least for the past 40 years. Especially since downtown shopping died with the loss of Grace St. stores. Nothing has replaced the stores or motivated the greater Richmond populace to live or work downtown.
Lawyer Sarahan is correct when saying that there is no significant representation by the black community in generating new ideas for Richmond. Unfortunately it has not happened in the past and there is no indication that it will happen in the future. It is a culture that just does not care about “vision”. The biggest dollar-maker for the area can be from tourists viewing Civil War history, yet the same community will never permit Richmond to realize this potential.
How exciting was the recent Jamestown 400yr celebration? A politically correct event that was poorly attended. Until people stop the incessant whining about their “wrongs” and others stop trying to “give away the store” to assuage those wrongs, very little positive action will be taken. Classic example is the City of Richmond.
A regional government makes common sense economically, planning and facilities, but trust between the current political subdivisions must be established first. Many of us do not trust the City because of past actions, such as 1970 annexation. Much of this is racial due to the population makeup. The Richmond group, that has bad schools and government, will want to run the areas that have good schools and government. It would not be an integrated government of equals because federal intervention, EEOC and Dept.Justice, will force City of Richmond government on us. Not going to happen.
Post Your Comments:
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.