I agree with Fran that it is frustrating when citizens do not speak up for their interests but I also think we have to be careful about who to blame when residents do not participate. In the case of the Lowry Corridor initiative, the participation format was based on large multi-neighborhood meetings. Those meetings were run by professional consultants who already had an extensive pre-set agenda in place. The ability of residents to fundamentally critic the basic assumptions of the plan were thus limited. This can lead to some people feeling that their involvement isn't worthwhile. This can also be a very intimidating format for people who are not used to attending meetings or speaking in public.
Many of the residents to be most impacted by the widening of the Lowry Corridor are lower-income people, some are immigrants, non-native English speakers, generally with less formal education, renters, and for the most part not engaged in the political process. (In short they are in quite a different situation from most of the connected, well-educated, internet-savvy members of this list). Many have children and full-time ++ jobs and it is not easy for them to regularly attend neighborhood meetings or to focus on concerns that seem far out in the future. But that does not mean their concerns should be overlooked. Developers and planners have a responsibility to ensure that the interests of all impacted communities are reflected in their plans, not just the "squeaky wheels" who have the time, energy, and awareness to attend a long series of meetings. Many people who wouldn't be inclined to attend large multi-neighborhood public meetings, much less a public hearing downtown, may still respond well using different formats--block club meetings, responding to door-knocking, or reading a flyer left in their mailbox. Ensuring such participation admittedly requires time and effort. But when an initiative like this is proposed, one that may result in the loss of large numbers of housing units and small businesses, it is essential that such steps be taken. When this is ignored situations like this one develop. In this case county staff sincerely think they did a fine job on ensuring participation but many residents to be impacted the most still feel like they never were included. This is the root of a lot of problems and conflict with city development plans. When such conflicts emerge planners should first ask why their own outreach efforts were inadequate and how they could be improved rather than "blaming the victims" for their lack of participation. Bruce Shoemaker Holland Neighborhood Message: 13 From: "Fran Guminga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mpls Issues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:23:45 -0500 Subject: [Mpls] Lowry Avenue Corridor Plan I sat on the Lowry Corridor advisory committee for the Bottineau neighborhood and was also a member of the citizen group that selected the developer (I was the only one voting "no" for the developer selected because of what I perceived as a poor citizen participation model in the proposal.) I generally support the plan concepts, but I also share some of the concerns expressed by Bruce Shoemaker and others about some aspects of the Lowry corridor plan. In addition to the BNSF viaduct, the Lowry Avenue Bridge is another barrier to smoother traffic flow, besides being a safety hazard and an environmental danger to the river because of its open grid road bed. There are no plans to replace this aging structure. I do believe that a better model for citizen participation exists, but it is hardly, if ever, employed. Citizens should be involved way before a plan is conceived so that those closest to the problem can help set the project parameters. If we want to use the Lowry Corridor planning process as a rallying point for better citizen participation, I'm all for it. Having said all of that, however, I know that few people attended the public meetings. I live within a block of Lowry, yet I was the only resident on my street that attended any of the meetings. They were publicized in the local press and through letters to neighborhood associations. I insisted at the outset that each property owner within a block of Lowry be sent a letter informing them of the planning process. I wrote at least two articles for the monthly Bottineau newsletter and attended a neighborhood meeting to explain in detail what was being promoted for the corridor. I asked neighborhood people to contact me directly if they had questions or concerns (only two did so). Frankly, the Bottineau residents showed little interest in the plan even though I emphasized that houses and businesses along the south side of Lowry would probably be eliminated. Residents have to make an attempt to attend the meetings early on in order to have any meaningful participation in the planning process. Numbers do count. The northeast portion of the plan will not be implemented for several years, so there is time for changes to be made if residents make their voices heard. Fran Guminga Bottineau _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
