|
Fighting Our Way to a Better Place? |
|
by Carl Mumpower
Commentary
Mountain Xpress
February 19, 2003
One
of the questions most often posed to newly elected individuals is, "Are
you enjoying your office?" Somehow the word "enjoy" doesnt quite
capture the essence of the experience. "Appreciate," "value" and
"honor" come to mind, but the generous doses of conflict, criticism and
contradiction the job entails seem to limit the outright enjoyment to
either the ultra-mature or to those frustrated souls who thrive on
resistance because it makes them feel they matter.
One of the
more visible areas of conflict here in Asheville is the persistent
power struggle between neighbors and developers. Although we have made
headway in easing the friction, this city still has room to grow in
moving beyond the limited concept of fighting ones way to a better
place.
The most recent neighbors/developers clash concerned the
new Neighborhood Corridor District on Broadway. It may come as a
surprise that a lot more was done right than wrong in this instance.
The decision-making process was inclusive, constructive and proactive,
and there was a strong effort from all four legs of the
table–neighbors, developers, city planning staff and City Council–to
reach a little higher and establish a healthier model. This higher
reach may have drooped a bit here and there, but there was clearly a
collective wish to do things better this time and thus lay groundwork
for a better next time.
In that same spirit, and given that
were all in this together, it might help if we briefly explored some
of the myths and realities about development i!
n Ashevi
lle. One of the
bigger realities centers on our housing needs. Its estimated that we
will need 25 percent more housing in 20 years than we have now. One of
the myths is that we can or should stop this growth. With every action
comes a reaction, and to artificially restrain growth is to guarantee
even higher inflation of housing/land costs, sprawled out development
over our countryside and hillside, and the progressive loss of
opportunity for the average wage earner to live and thrive within our
city limits. Rather than limiting growth, our best chances for success
will come from nudging growth in better directions. Increasing housing
density in our commercial corridors, for example, is one of the best
ways to affordably meet our housing needs and limit the intrusion on
traditional neighborhoods. Any growth or change has consequences, but
smarter growth policies step on your toes without cutting off your legs.
Another
myth centers on "greedy" developers and "selfish" neighbors. We have
some of both, but most developers and neighbors do have an eye on the
common good. Your average developer wants to make a profit but also
recognizes the limits of pillaging and plundering. Most of the homes,
landmarks, neighborhoods, parks and historic resources of Asheville
resulted from good developers good works. At the other end of the
playing field are the neighbors. There are some who seem determined to
resist any change that looms on Ashevilles horizon. Most concerned
neighbors, however, recognize the limits of NIMBYism and take a more
genuine interest in understanding the facts and trying to make sure
that whatever change does come is as positive and helpful as possible.
With
all due respect for contrasting viewpoints, I dont believe the
Broadway Corridor process failed. The level of communication,
cooperation and compromise was too dramatic and persistent. No one leg
of the t!
able dom
inated the process. An example might be
"drive-throughs." For some, this term triggers images of fast-food
restaurants and other high-traffic magnets–the antithesis of a
pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. At the other end of the spectrum,
eliminating drive-throughs represents heavy-handed governmental control
and artificial exclusion of what could be a useful resource. Who do you
think is most likely to use a drugstore drive-through?
The final
outcome was a compromise allowing drive-throughs under certain
circumstances but requiring a conditional use permit from City Council.
This is a grounded compromise that leaves the door open to
possibilities without giving anyone a blank check. And though it wont
necessarily satisfy all the individual preferences on either side of
the fence, this compromise does reasonably preserve the integrity of
both the Neighborhood Corridor district and private property rights.
This is one of many examples where, together, the majority of those who
participated "aimed for the middle" and crafted a reasonable outcome.
Having
said all this, however, there are still more general obstacles to
cooperation that we can work to fix. Trumping, vilification, arrogance
and misinformation are temptations we might all do well to avoid as
ways to approach the neighbors/developers conflict.
Trumping
happens when one party appears to participate in the process in good
faith right up to a crucial point–when they suddenly pull out a "trump
card and try to roll right over the other folks at the table. One
example might be a council vote thats grounded in political
maneuvering rather than fact-gathering and measured decision-making.
Another example might be threatening a lawsuit at the 11th hour when
things arent going according to one groups wishes. A developer can
"trump" a neighborhood by unilaterally choosing to do whatever t!
he law
allows instead of making a reasonable effort to arrive at a compromise
that best serves the collective good. Although everyone is free to play
their cards as they wish, the heavy clunk of trumping does little to
help us all arrive at a better place.
Vilification results when
we succumb to the temptation to personally attack or insult those with
whom we disagree. At times, weve all seen different people mock
developers, city planning staff, neighborhood advocates, and those who
make the policy decisions. It feels good, for the moment, to play "good
guys and bad guys," but the price is high. Making villains out of those
with whom we share this city undermines communication, commonality and
cooperation - all of which are necessary for good development.
Arrogance
implies unique insight. Although it may be true that some know more
than others, certainly none of us has cornered the market on
enlightenment. Arrogant voices often seem to feel entitled to special
consideration and are thus more comfortable with bullying, indifference
and simplistic solutions to complex problems. But while each of us is
blessed with a unique perspective, the limits on our vision offer
little validation for an arrogant mindset. One set of self-directed
eyes will rarely do as well as multiple sets of eyes collectively
searching for effective solutions to common problems.
The
temptation to spread misinformation knocks firmly on everyones door.
Sensationalizing, magnifying, ignoring or otherwise distorting the
facts can temporarily firm up an advocacy position. In the process,
however, trust, goodwill and truth are sacrificed to limited short-term
gain. Its easy to say that a particular Council member is in the
pockets of developers or that a certain city staffer is biased toward a
specific social agenda. The truth, however, is rarely so simple, and
the more we can all keep the clut!
ter of m
isinformation off the table,
the more stable that table will be.
Good development requires
constructive, voluntary participation by all the players. If we want a
"stable table," then we need to continue seeking ways to strengthen our
respective legs. Council can lead the way by doing our best to make
decisions that are grounded in principles and facts rather than
politics and personal preference. Developers can smooth both their own
and every one elses way by trying to work with neighborhoods to craft
development that works for a majority of those affected. Neighbors who
concentrate on reasoned and balanced positions shared in partnership
rather than adversarialism will strengthen their impact and more
effectively preserve the integrity of their neighborhoods. And city
staff members - by helping us improve development standards, lines of
communication and collective participation–can also have a dramatic
positive impact.
Putting less emphasis on winning, proving,
fighting, controlling or competing, we have the ability–together–to
take the development process to a higher level. Development, like all
forms of change, will never be problem-, stress- or conflict-free. We
can, however, get things to a point where the fussing and fighting no
longer overshadow the opportunities and visions now unfolding here in
Asheville. Together we can ensure a balanced development process where
everyone at the table has a voice and no one voice gets more than a
fair share of the table.
A good starting place for change might
be with you and me. When my adult son was a child, I made a deal with
him that whenever I indulged my temper over something he did, then any
subsequent discipline was canceled and I owed him five bucks. That
arrangement helped keep me on the right track as a parent–and my son
made much less of my temper than hed anticipated. Maybe you and I can
ha!
ve a sim
ilar arrangement? Think about ways you can improve your end
of the process, but if you catch me giving in to the temptations of
trumping, vilification, arrogance or misinformation, let me know and
Ill buy you breakfast. Perhaps, over a meal, we might be able to find
still more ways to nudge Ashevilles development in a good direction.
|
|
|
|
|
