I've received a wide range of emails on my earlier post to the listserv. They range from accusing me of being naively incendiary to soliciting my help in stopping the sewer extension, to puzzling over whether I'm pro or con the proposed extension.
I don't know enough about the specifics to form a clear opinion. To my mind, the question isn't what I think of this project; it's whether this project is consistent with the planning and permitting goals of the community.
I've said a hundred times that I feel our planning and permitting approach in this town is broken and needs to be reconsidered. This is not a matter of blaming anyone. We're planning and permitting like many of the communities around us. I just think we can do a much better job in a way that engages townspeople more constructively.
I think it is unfair to individual applicants (Housing Vermont and the attempt to locate affordable housing at Agway property; Simpson and the gateway property; Upper Valley Events Center and the old dentists office on Rte 5; now KAF and the sewer extension) that we legislate development parameters without any clear sense of the impacts upon individual land owners. I'm all for scenic preservation, affordable housing, a commercial district and adaptive reuse. I'm bothered that we continue to approach both planning and permitting with this top-down perspective that leads to inconsistent enforcement and ad hoc rezoning to try to mitigate what many might feel are onerous, illogical restrictions on individual land owners.
Should King Arthur Flour get a sewer extension from the Hartford line? If we want to encourage continued growth of their operations here in Norwich, then yes. If we want to encourage further commercial development in the Route 5 South corridor, then we should be looking to help KAF extend the line so it can serve more businesses in that area. If we're concerned that this line will eventually be extended to downtown Norwich, leading to a very different growth pattern, then the answer is probably no, but that should be addressed in our Town Plan and our regulations. The question should always be, what does the community want, collectively, and how can we, as a community achieve those goals?
The Planning Commission is in the process of revising our Town Plan after recently revising our zoning regulations. I've rankled their membership enough over the years to leave off what I think of the current revision effort. I hope townspeople will try to get up to speed and engage in the town plan revision meetings and the details of the KAF application as it becomes more public.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The Best and the Brightest
As President Obama reviews his options for continued American involvement in Aghanistan, I've been rereading David Halberstam's 1972 survey of our descent into Vietnam, "The Best and the Brightest."
One theme prevails in reading this history now nearly forty years after it was written. Halberstam's focus on the individual decision-makers feels misplaced. For all their talents and weaknesses, these men were not in control of events, let alone equal to them. They were the products of an earlier time, just as today's Administration is inevitably out of time. America's disastrous adventure in Vietnam was, by all historical measures, the inevitable product of a hugely complex political and social struggle which dwarfed the men who led us into full-scale war as surely as it dwarfed the millions of casualties which resulted.
The American political mood made it impossible for our elected leaders to find an exit strategy short of victory. The Vietnamese themselves made that victory impossible.
The lesson here for Afghanistan is quite simple.
We can be certain our Afghan adversaries will make victory impossible. Their advantages are profound. They have more at stake and, unlike us, they have nowhere else to go. We will tire of this war. We deceive ourselves and our allies to suggest otherwise. We consign thousands and thousands of as-yet unblemished bodies and minds to the meat grinder of a campaign we cannot finish. It is time to declare victory and go home.
Sadly, of course, we won't.
The Obama Administration has a second term to think about. Their political opponents will criticize whatever the Administration chooses to do, but most certainly any strategy that "leaves Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."
We the People dither. Afghanistan is a righteous cause for a handful of reasons: We were attacked and have a right to defend ourselves from further attacks; the Taliban viciously oppressed the Afghan people, particularly their women; having created a power vacuum, we have a moral duty to help rebuild the country; leaving short of victory emboldens our enemies and discourages our allies. All true, to some degree, and all irrelevant when one acknowledges the cost in lives and limbs against the absolute inevitablity of our eventual withdrawal without achieving any one of those goals.
Halberstam would say our fate is in the hands of those decision-makers in war council at the White House, as though the outcome were actually in the balance. I think our fate is already sealed by the short-sighted, contradictory, and ultimately naive impulses which possess our body politic and will take generations to gestate. I would love to see Barack Obama prove me wrong.
One theme prevails in reading this history now nearly forty years after it was written. Halberstam's focus on the individual decision-makers feels misplaced. For all their talents and weaknesses, these men were not in control of events, let alone equal to them. They were the products of an earlier time, just as today's Administration is inevitably out of time. America's disastrous adventure in Vietnam was, by all historical measures, the inevitable product of a hugely complex political and social struggle which dwarfed the men who led us into full-scale war as surely as it dwarfed the millions of casualties which resulted.
The American political mood made it impossible for our elected leaders to find an exit strategy short of victory. The Vietnamese themselves made that victory impossible.
The lesson here for Afghanistan is quite simple.
We can be certain our Afghan adversaries will make victory impossible. Their advantages are profound. They have more at stake and, unlike us, they have nowhere else to go. We will tire of this war. We deceive ourselves and our allies to suggest otherwise. We consign thousands and thousands of as-yet unblemished bodies and minds to the meat grinder of a campaign we cannot finish. It is time to declare victory and go home.
Sadly, of course, we won't.
The Obama Administration has a second term to think about. Their political opponents will criticize whatever the Administration chooses to do, but most certainly any strategy that "leaves Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."
We the People dither. Afghanistan is a righteous cause for a handful of reasons: We were attacked and have a right to defend ourselves from further attacks; the Taliban viciously oppressed the Afghan people, particularly their women; having created a power vacuum, we have a moral duty to help rebuild the country; leaving short of victory emboldens our enemies and discourages our allies. All true, to some degree, and all irrelevant when one acknowledges the cost in lives and limbs against the absolute inevitablity of our eventual withdrawal without achieving any one of those goals.
Halberstam would say our fate is in the hands of those decision-makers in war council at the White House, as though the outcome were actually in the balance. I think our fate is already sealed by the short-sighted, contradictory, and ultimately naive impulses which possess our body politic and will take generations to gestate. I would love to see Barack Obama prove me wrong.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Shoot Us All
I stand corrected.
Jim Thurber was indeed asked to stop posting to this list in an email from Bob Raiselis a couple days ago.
Now what?
One side of me says this is a shame. Someone complained enough about Jim Thurber's posts that ValleyNet felt they needed to take some action. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and if enough listserv participants counter-complain, his posting rights will likely be reinstated. We can go on and on about whether Jim Thurber should be voted off the island. The bottom line to me is that I have a choice whether to read Jim Thurber, Steve Thoms, or the Valley News for that matter. Let them write and let people vote with their eyes. I hope Bob Raiselis will relent.
For those who want to hang ValleyNet in effigy, I would be interested to hear how a community non-profit should handle complaints of abuse such as these. I don't see an easy answer, but I think a solution will prove itself. If censorship really becomes an issue then readers will go elsewhere. If snarky comments, snide remarks and angry emails about prolixity or naivete become too common, readers will go elsewhere. If people go elsewhere, the point of a community listserv is lost -- not what ValleyNet or most readers can possibly desire.
Another side of me says this is all too precious to contemplate. There are people being maimed and killed in our names in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Dan Weintraub isn't the only person who sincerely believes our economic future is under dire threat. There are people going hungry and sleeping in their cars tonight within a few miles of us. I love to hear myself verbalize as much as anyone, but I struggle to see clear villains in this matter.
ValleyNet's trying their level best to accommodate a wide variety of interests and uses for an avowed public purpose. Give them credit for the attempt and perhaps a bit more understanding for the difficulty of their position responding to abuse complaints from readers. Jim Thurber likes this list and some people apparently don't like that he now lives in Colorado. In the big scheme of things, we're talking annoyances here, not capital crimes. How about a little more tolerance and a little less vitriol.
Jim Thurber was indeed asked to stop posting to this list in an email from Bob Raiselis a couple days ago.
Now what?
One side of me says this is a shame. Someone complained enough about Jim Thurber's posts that ValleyNet felt they needed to take some action. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and if enough listserv participants counter-complain, his posting rights will likely be reinstated. We can go on and on about whether Jim Thurber should be voted off the island. The bottom line to me is that I have a choice whether to read Jim Thurber, Steve Thoms, or the Valley News for that matter. Let them write and let people vote with their eyes. I hope Bob Raiselis will relent.
For those who want to hang ValleyNet in effigy, I would be interested to hear how a community non-profit should handle complaints of abuse such as these. I don't see an easy answer, but I think a solution will prove itself. If censorship really becomes an issue then readers will go elsewhere. If snarky comments, snide remarks and angry emails about prolixity or naivete become too common, readers will go elsewhere. If people go elsewhere, the point of a community listserv is lost -- not what ValleyNet or most readers can possibly desire.
Another side of me says this is all too precious to contemplate. There are people being maimed and killed in our names in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Dan Weintraub isn't the only person who sincerely believes our economic future is under dire threat. There are people going hungry and sleeping in their cars tonight within a few miles of us. I love to hear myself verbalize as much as anyone, but I struggle to see clear villains in this matter.
ValleyNet's trying their level best to accommodate a wide variety of interests and uses for an avowed public purpose. Give them credit for the attempt and perhaps a bit more understanding for the difficulty of their position responding to abuse complaints from readers. Jim Thurber likes this list and some people apparently don't like that he now lives in Colorado. In the big scheme of things, we're talking annoyances here, not capital crimes. How about a little more tolerance and a little less vitriol.
Shooting the Messenger
I encourage ValleyNet's critics in this matter to develop a set of rules to govern such a public forum, launch their forum, and live by their rules for a few years. Between trolls, commercial interests, and hot-heads any set of rules will be hard-pressed at times. I appreciate Bob Raiselis' efforts to keep listserv policy enforcement/discussion off the list itself. I realize that authority can be abused in the wrong hands, but have yet to hear any complaint that any opinion or viewpoint has been suppressed from this list. Many public forums include a separate list for discussion of list/posting policy and if anyone wishes to initiate such a list, I would be very surprised if Valley Net would refuse to host it.
I simply disagree that ValleyNet has somehow"forfeited all credibility as a discussion host." When Vicky Fish launched this list more than three years ago, there was nothing else like it in town. Before that, the Selectboard squabbled about who could use the town email lists and for what purposes; the factions in town government had their own email lists to reinforce their own views on things; and the Valley News was the Valley News. This list has survived and grown as an open forum without advertising, spam jams, or any serious questions about ValleyNet's role as host until this week. Does ValleyNet, as listserv host, have the capability to ruin it's community listserv's by suppressing viewpoints or blocking submissions? Yup. Any evidence it has or would like to do that?
I hope Norwich Pillory will contemplate whether he/she might be partaking a bit in the "intolerant and intemperate attacks" which -- as Jeff Doyle mentioned a couple weeks back -- might justify Norwich Pillory's feeling the need to post anonymously.
Watt Alexander
- - - - -
Bob Raiselis says "keep the discussion centered on the town rather than the
town discussion list" even though the town discussion list has become a town
issue. In point of fact, Bob has become a town issue. But we are not allowed
to mention that. And since he is hosting the discussion and can toss anyone
out of the discussion at his own discretion without any permissible public
recourse, we are supposed to keep the discussion focused on a topic that we
are not allowed to mention.
I don't know how the rest of you feel about this but my sentiment is that
valleynet has effectively forfeited all credibility as a discussion host. I
hope also that the various subscribers to the Norwich listserv who have
advocated the ouster, suppression, or silencing of participants in this
forum will contemplate the fruits of their intolerant and intemperate
attacks.
Oh yes, Bob, please feel free to toss me off the list. But I won't promise
not to publish any email you send me, so if it is truly private, please just
keep it to yourself. (There's a double-bind for you in return for the one
you tried to impose on us.)
Your anonymous pal,
Norwich Pillory
I simply disagree that ValleyNet has somehow"forfeited all credibility as a discussion host." When Vicky Fish launched this list more than three years ago, there was nothing else like it in town. Before that, the Selectboard squabbled about who could use the town email lists and for what purposes; the factions in town government had their own email lists to reinforce their own views on things; and the Valley News was the Valley News. This list has survived and grown as an open forum without advertising, spam jams, or any serious questions about ValleyNet's role as host until this week. Does ValleyNet, as listserv host, have the capability to ruin it's community listserv's by suppressing viewpoints or blocking submissions? Yup. Any evidence it has or would like to do that?
I hope Norwich Pillory will contemplate whether he/she might be partaking a bit in the "intolerant and intemperate attacks" which -- as Jeff Doyle mentioned a couple weeks back -- might justify Norwich Pillory's feeling the need to post anonymously.
Watt Alexander
- - - - -
Bob Raiselis says "keep the discussion centered on the town rather than the
town discussion list" even though the town discussion list has become a town
issue. In point of fact, Bob has become a town issue. But we are not allowed
to mention that. And since he is hosting the discussion and can toss anyone
out of the discussion at his own discretion without any permissible public
recourse, we are supposed to keep the discussion focused on a topic that we
are not allowed to mention.
I don't know how the rest of you feel about this but my sentiment is that
valleynet has effectively forfeited all credibility as a discussion host. I
hope also that the various subscribers to the Norwich listserv who have
advocated the ouster, suppression, or silencing of participants in this
forum will contemplate the fruits of their intolerant and intemperate
attacks.
Oh yes, Bob, please feel free to toss me off the list. But I won't promise
not to publish any email you send me, so if it is truly private, please just
keep it to yourself. (There's a double-bind for you in return for the one
you tried to impose on us.)
Your anonymous pal,
Norwich Pillory
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Conversations That Matter
This is a belated response to Jeff Doyle's comments of a couple weeks back:
In this sense, Norwich is like a dysfunctional family: it can't solve
its problems because it can't talk about them. I don't, however, think
the listserv is quite the right venue for a talking cure. Nor - for
different reasons - is town meeting. Nor are the select board
meetings.
I've been thinking a great deal about this because the Norwich
Historical Society is talking about how to make good on the "Community
Center" on its sign - and so I've been thinking about what I
(personally) think is missing from our community. I'm not at all sure
that the NHS is the one to provide it, but I do think we need more
opportunities for "face time" in Norwich in which citizens can have
conversations that matter. The town eating days are a great example of
that kind of critical conversation - but I think we need something
perhaps less structured and certainly more frequent. I'm not sure
what.
I'd suggest we, as a community, rethink the town plan process as an excellent opportunity to engage townspeople in "conversations that matter." Under the auspices of the Planning Commission, the town plan review process could become an on-going conversation about various aspects of the town's future -- the subject being concrete planning goals, but the process leading to more constructive conversations among townspeople as we all become more acquainted with other points of view.
While state law requires that the PC approve an updated town plan every few years, there's nothing in the law that says it has to be conducted the way we have historically revised out town plan. I don't mean to criticize our current or past Planning Commission members, many of whom have knocked themselves out to do their best with an awkward task. I'm simply saying a town plan can and should be a living, breathing process of public dialogue on specific tasks within the broad chapters of the existing town plan -- a continuing dialogue regardless of the town plan revision deadline. It's a very different approach that hasn't found traction in the past:
http://norwichnavel.blogspot.com/2005/05/open-letter-to-sbpccc-re-big-picture.html
I differ from Jeff's suggestion that more frequent, less structured conversations are the answer. In my experience, it's the hard work of trying to understand a specific issue and then having to take a stand on it that really makes the difference.
By the way, we will be starting work on the 2010 Town Eating Day soon and are always interested to hear suggestions/constructive criticism about how it might be improved.
In this sense, Norwich is like a dysfunctional family: it can't solve
its problems because it can't talk about them. I don't, however, think
the listserv is quite the right venue for a talking cure. Nor - for
different reasons - is town meeting. Nor are the select board
meetings.
I've been thinking a great deal about this because the Norwich
Historical Society is talking about how to make good on the "Community
Center" on its sign - and so I've been thinking about what I
(personally) think is missing from our community. I'm not at all sure
that the NHS is the one to provide it, but I do think we need more
opportunities for "face time" in Norwich in which citizens can have
conversations that matter. The town eating days are a great example of
that kind of critical conversation - but I think we need something
perhaps less structured and certainly more frequent. I'm not sure
what.
I'd suggest we, as a community, rethink the town plan process as an excellent opportunity to engage townspeople in "conversations that matter." Under the auspices of the Planning Commission, the town plan review process could become an on-going conversation about various aspects of the town's future -- the subject being concrete planning goals, but the process leading to more constructive conversations among townspeople as we all become more acquainted with other points of view.
While state law requires that the PC approve an updated town plan every few years, there's nothing in the law that says it has to be conducted the way we have historically revised out town plan. I don't mean to criticize our current or past Planning Commission members, many of whom have knocked themselves out to do their best with an awkward task. I'm simply saying a town plan can and should be a living, breathing process of public dialogue on specific tasks within the broad chapters of the existing town plan -- a continuing dialogue regardless of the town plan revision deadline. It's a very different approach that hasn't found traction in the past:
http://norwichnavel.blogspot.com/2005/05/open-letter-to-sbpccc-re-big-picture.html
I differ from Jeff's suggestion that more frequent, less structured conversations are the answer. In my experience, it's the hard work of trying to understand a specific issue and then having to take a stand on it that really makes the difference.
By the way, we will be starting work on the 2010 Town Eating Day soon and are always interested to hear suggestions/constructive criticism about how it might be improved.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Dialogue (Norwich listserv)
Quick reply to Maureen's post from a few minutes ago. I'm out of town the rest of this week so won't be responding for a few days -- so please don't misconstrue silence.
Maureen asks who I think is superimposing these values. I'm trying to sat that we all are. We all use terms like dialogue and community, but we don't often critically question what we mean ourselves. It's probably human nature that when I bemoan a lack of dialogue I'm often really complaining that others don't agree with me. A sense of a lack of community may really be a sense of not comfortably belonging oneself, most often prompted by a realization that a number of other people we live near disagree with us on some seemingly fundamental values.
At its best, active engagement in the democratic process should be a matter of self-discovery. As we confront the unlike-minded we should be humbled by our own provinciality, finding with each conversation and each constructive compromise that we never saw an issue from these other points of view because we never thought to ask before. Non one ever talks about that aspect of self-governance.
In a similar vein, we seldom honestly discuss the roots of our political predicament. We are defined not by a shared sense of community or values, but by the basic legal facts of our property. You and I are Norwich residents by dint of our being property owners and thus taxpayers in this political entity. My wife and I were married and settled here based on our own personal projections of what life in this town might mean. Every household here is a different story with many different values and often conflicting goals. Yet we're all granted the right to vote here due to our physical location and our taxpaying obligation.
And yet Jeff's posts seeking a more constructive and thoughtful way to engage one another eloquently express aspirations many, perhaps most of us share. We want to belong, we want to feel we've contributed, we want to be heard, we want to understand what is going on, and we're all afraid, to some extent, that the things we value in our lives here may be under threat. That fear drives the shrillness of our political debate and often overwhelms the impulses to belong, contribute, and understand.
So I'm just saying let's be realistic about what we're after and how we think we can get it. The first step, in my opinion, is to take a hard look at our own projections and question whether we're ready to listen and try to understand other views that appear to frustrate those aspirations. As people become more realistic about what's at stake and the impossibility of achieving most of these goals through this year's selectboard majority or next years warrant article, maybe we begin to rethink the role and purpose of the political entities we have inherited. Warned town meetings reflect a long-standing political and legal struggle that has nothing to do with dialogue or good decision-making. A selectboard has authority to promulgate legislative policy but can choose many different ways to exercise that authority. It' a real tragedy that a succession of elected members and vocal partisans have fallen into a pattern this past dozen years which primarily serves Valley News circulation. With Town Eating Day, we've struggled to create a few different forums which we hope might lead volunteer committees, elected officials and townspeople to rethink their roles. It's been very tough going and it's not at all clear whether it will succeed. I agree 100% that while writing to listservs can start conversations, dialogue requires face time and the time to listen. I also agree that listserv postings can silence more readily than they can prompt conversation.
Maureen asks who I think is superimposing these values. I'm trying to sat that we all are. We all use terms like dialogue and community, but we don't often critically question what we mean ourselves. It's probably human nature that when I bemoan a lack of dialogue I'm often really complaining that others don't agree with me. A sense of a lack of community may really be a sense of not comfortably belonging oneself, most often prompted by a realization that a number of other people we live near disagree with us on some seemingly fundamental values.
At its best, active engagement in the democratic process should be a matter of self-discovery. As we confront the unlike-minded we should be humbled by our own provinciality, finding with each conversation and each constructive compromise that we never saw an issue from these other points of view because we never thought to ask before. Non one ever talks about that aspect of self-governance.
In a similar vein, we seldom honestly discuss the roots of our political predicament. We are defined not by a shared sense of community or values, but by the basic legal facts of our property. You and I are Norwich residents by dint of our being property owners and thus taxpayers in this political entity. My wife and I were married and settled here based on our own personal projections of what life in this town might mean. Every household here is a different story with many different values and often conflicting goals. Yet we're all granted the right to vote here due to our physical location and our taxpaying obligation.
And yet Jeff's posts seeking a more constructive and thoughtful way to engage one another eloquently express aspirations many, perhaps most of us share. We want to belong, we want to feel we've contributed, we want to be heard, we want to understand what is going on, and we're all afraid, to some extent, that the things we value in our lives here may be under threat. That fear drives the shrillness of our political debate and often overwhelms the impulses to belong, contribute, and understand.
So I'm just saying let's be realistic about what we're after and how we think we can get it. The first step, in my opinion, is to take a hard look at our own projections and question whether we're ready to listen and try to understand other views that appear to frustrate those aspirations. As people become more realistic about what's at stake and the impossibility of achieving most of these goals through this year's selectboard majority or next years warrant article, maybe we begin to rethink the role and purpose of the political entities we have inherited. Warned town meetings reflect a long-standing political and legal struggle that has nothing to do with dialogue or good decision-making. A selectboard has authority to promulgate legislative policy but can choose many different ways to exercise that authority. It' a real tragedy that a succession of elected members and vocal partisans have fallen into a pattern this past dozen years which primarily serves Valley News circulation. With Town Eating Day, we've struggled to create a few different forums which we hope might lead volunteer committees, elected officials and townspeople to rethink their roles. It's been very tough going and it's not at all clear whether it will succeed. I agree 100% that while writing to listservs can start conversations, dialogue requires face time and the time to listen. I also agree that listserv postings can silence more readily than they can prompt conversation.
Busy List (Norwich listserv)
Jeff Doyle raises some interesting issues that I can't resist addressing.
I don't agree with those who suggest Norwich is somehow exceptional either in our incivility or our dysfunction. If anything, we may have a disproportionate share of people who expect to get their own way, but it takes a selective reader of the Valley News to imagine we are unique in our troubles or our difficulty addressing them.
I'll venture to say that most of our political problems this past decade are rooted in the inevitable tension between representative democracy and professional bureaucracy. Elected and appointed volunteers -- like most any committee -- have a terrible time supervising professional staff. Do professional staff serve communities or the elected and appointed volunteers who are their bosses? Selectboard members are answerable to a different constituency than town managers. SAU superintendants live a completely different day-to-day existence than school board members; responding to different points of friction, assessing their own performance against utterly different criteria, and operating on completely different time horizons. We pay no attention to the difficult, perhaps contradictory role faced by our professional administrators as they try to do a job on the basis of goals and values articulated by people who may be relegated to a minority in the next election cycle or resign to get back to their "real" lives. Professional administration is fundamentally anti-democratic and no one ever acknowledges the fact. We expect our administrators to possess a kind of omniscience we ourselves -- being voters and taxpayers -- feel no compunction about lacking ourselves. And we ignore the Darwinian inevitability that civil administration attracts and promotes people who possess a skill set often at odds with -- even downright antagonistic to -- what we commonly hold to be democratic and political virtues. Add some forceful personalities to the mix and you have news. I could go on at length, but Virginia Close intimidates me.
I also can't agree with Jeff's statement that we suffer "from a gulf between what can be said out loud, and what is said in hushed tones between like-minded friends." In my experience, at least, like-minded friends tend to reinforce a narrow-minded perspective. I've never once found a selectboard member or other citizen unwilling to share their views when asked. Some have struck me as close-minded and others distasteful, but I've always found they will say out loud much of what they think on the issues of the day. Make the time to chat with an Alison May or Sarah Nunan and you'll find an intelligent person who cares a great deal about what they believe. You may not agree, but you'll likely understand much better why they do the things they do. If you want to feel more a part of this community, seek out the unlike-minded and take the time to listen to what their unlike mind is up to. Maybe they'll do a bit of listening themselves.
Finally, why do we superimpose values such as dialogue, understanding, and consensus upon warned public meetings? That's simply not their purpose or design. I would like to think there is a place for meaningful dialogue, understanding and even consensus about how we govern ourselves, but we search in vain looking for it in warned public meetings and a listserv. My gender betrays me.
- - - - -
My problem with Norwich politics is that what passes for openness and
transparency is often little more than a kind of verbal arbitrage in
which innuendo and prevarication are played off against the limits of
decorous speech. A problem which is only exacerbated (in my opinion)
by well meaning commenters who decry the town's supposed lack of
civility, but fail to see that this very civility is being manipulated
at the expense of community. I think we suffer not from a lack of
civility, but an excess of decorum. We suffer from a gulf between what
can be said out loud, and what is said in hushed tones between
like-minded friends.
In this sense, Norwich is like a dysfunctional family: it can't solve
its problems because it can't talk about them. I don't, however, think
the listserv is quite the right venue for a talking cure. Nor - for
different reasons - is town meeting. Nor are the select board
meetings.
Jeff
I don't agree with those who suggest Norwich is somehow exceptional either in our incivility or our dysfunction. If anything, we may have a disproportionate share of people who expect to get their own way, but it takes a selective reader of the Valley News to imagine we are unique in our troubles or our difficulty addressing them.
I'll venture to say that most of our political problems this past decade are rooted in the inevitable tension between representative democracy and professional bureaucracy. Elected and appointed volunteers -- like most any committee -- have a terrible time supervising professional staff. Do professional staff serve communities or the elected and appointed volunteers who are their bosses? Selectboard members are answerable to a different constituency than town managers. SAU superintendants live a completely different day-to-day existence than school board members; responding to different points of friction, assessing their own performance against utterly different criteria, and operating on completely different time horizons. We pay no attention to the difficult, perhaps contradictory role faced by our professional administrators as they try to do a job on the basis of goals and values articulated by people who may be relegated to a minority in the next election cycle or resign to get back to their "real" lives. Professional administration is fundamentally anti-democratic and no one ever acknowledges the fact. We expect our administrators to possess a kind of omniscience we ourselves -- being voters and taxpayers -- feel no compunction about lacking ourselves. And we ignore the Darwinian inevitability that civil administration attracts and promotes people who possess a skill set often at odds with -- even downright antagonistic to -- what we commonly hold to be democratic and political virtues. Add some forceful personalities to the mix and you have news. I could go on at length, but Virginia Close intimidates me.
I also can't agree with Jeff's statement that we suffer "from a gulf between what can be said out loud, and what is said in hushed tones between like-minded friends." In my experience, at least, like-minded friends tend to reinforce a narrow-minded perspective. I've never once found a selectboard member or other citizen unwilling to share their views when asked. Some have struck me as close-minded and others distasteful, but I've always found they will say out loud much of what they think on the issues of the day. Make the time to chat with an Alison May or Sarah Nunan and you'll find an intelligent person who cares a great deal about what they believe. You may not agree, but you'll likely understand much better why they do the things they do. If you want to feel more a part of this community, seek out the unlike-minded and take the time to listen to what their unlike mind is up to. Maybe they'll do a bit of listening themselves.
Finally, why do we superimpose values such as dialogue, understanding, and consensus upon warned public meetings? That's simply not their purpose or design. I would like to think there is a place for meaningful dialogue, understanding and even consensus about how we govern ourselves, but we search in vain looking for it in warned public meetings and a listserv. My gender betrays me.
- - - - -
My problem with Norwich politics is that what passes for openness and
transparency is often little more than a kind of verbal arbitrage in
which innuendo and prevarication are played off against the limits of
decorous speech. A problem which is only exacerbated (in my opinion)
by well meaning commenters who decry the town's supposed lack of
civility, but fail to see that this very civility is being manipulated
at the expense of community. I think we suffer not from a lack of
civility, but an excess of decorum. We suffer from a gulf between what
can be said out loud, and what is said in hushed tones between
like-minded friends.
In this sense, Norwich is like a dysfunctional family: it can't solve
its problems because it can't talk about them. I don't, however, think
the listserv is quite the right venue for a talking cure. Nor - for
different reasons - is town meeting. Nor are the select board
meetings.
Jeff
Friday, October 9, 2009
Malmquist Mill (Thetford ListServ)
Just a point of clarification and perhaps illumination re: Andrew Toler's post this morning:
"You may ask yourself why would Thetford even want to do that? Would the town have to become property managers if we build housing? The short answer is that communities around the country who do not take an active hand in shaping their housing needs often end up with extremely bad situations. You tend to get housing units that either look like large slummy Projects, or else you get "affordable housing units" similar the the one sitting vacant on the edge of Norwich on Rte 5. That property was billed initially as affordable housing, was built, and ended up being offered at 3/4 of a million dollars per unit. The price has now dropped to about $400,000, and as far as I know, still sits empty. I would not like to see either extreme happen in Thetford."
- - - - -
First of all, the "Norwich Gateway" townhouses were never billed as affordable housing at any time in their acquisition or development. They were built by Simpson Development to showcase Simpson's ability to develop up-market properties and the design values they pursued were always targeted at the higher-end market. There were discussions in town government to acquire the property for affordable housing, but there was never consensus to get it done.
There is an implicit yet profound misapprehension in grouping the Norwich Gateway project together with "slummy Projects."
On the one hand, "slummy Projects" reflect the effort to strictly limit design and construction costs to attain affordability. It is a sad but fundamental fact that new housing at its most basic is still very expensive. "Affordability" necessarily pushes the envelope on those costs. Do not imagine for a moment that anything like the Norwich Gateway townhouses can be made "affordable" without massive, sustained subsidies to offset development expense.
On the other hand, "slummy Projects" are often the result of deep town, state and federal government involvement in the development of such housing. Other than the public purse and policy priorities, government, at every level, is poorly suited to housing development. Good development, like good work in almost any field, is the result of individual talent and focus. Representative government is a forum for grievances and collective responses to common problems. It cannot sustain either an individual vision or focus because it was not created for that purpose. Recognize the limits of town government and you can increase your chances of a good outcome. Decide on your policy goals (affordable, senior, mixed housing, mixed-use, etc.); identify your broad design requirements (not slummy, consistent with character of the area, etc.); recognize that your acquisition/initial development costs are minimal due to the generosity of the donor. Then decide on a process to get the property into the hands of a developer who you feel confident can fulfill your broad policy/design values with a realistic business plan. Let them bear the risk/responsibility for the project, but most importantly, let them do their work. The more you allow yourselves to revisit your choices and the longer the town remains involved in the development once a plan has been established, the greater the ultimate cost and the more the ultimate design will reflect a least common denominator of citizens' dislikes.
A more appropriate Norwich example of the risks of town government involvement might be the bandstand controversy -- a cautionary tale of handing design and project leadership to committees.
I have a great affection for the mill site and respect Mr. Toler's expressed goals. I hope the Thetford community can make a wise decision on its role in redevelopment of this site -- providing the vision, but leaving the specifics to a developer and, most importantly, respecting the necessary limits that entails. Best of luck.
Watt Alexander
"You may ask yourself why would Thetford even want to do that? Would the town have to become property managers if we build housing? The short answer is that communities around the country who do not take an active hand in shaping their housing needs often end up with extremely bad situations. You tend to get housing units that either look like large slummy Projects, or else you get "affordable housing units" similar the the one sitting vacant on the edge of Norwich on Rte 5. That property was billed initially as affordable housing, was built, and ended up being offered at 3/4 of a million dollars per unit. The price has now dropped to about $400,000, and as far as I know, still sits empty. I would not like to see either extreme happen in Thetford."
- - - - -
First of all, the "Norwich Gateway" townhouses were never billed as affordable housing at any time in their acquisition or development. They were built by Simpson Development to showcase Simpson's ability to develop up-market properties and the design values they pursued were always targeted at the higher-end market. There were discussions in town government to acquire the property for affordable housing, but there was never consensus to get it done.
There is an implicit yet profound misapprehension in grouping the Norwich Gateway project together with "slummy Projects."
On the one hand, "slummy Projects" reflect the effort to strictly limit design and construction costs to attain affordability. It is a sad but fundamental fact that new housing at its most basic is still very expensive. "Affordability" necessarily pushes the envelope on those costs. Do not imagine for a moment that anything like the Norwich Gateway townhouses can be made "affordable" without massive, sustained subsidies to offset development expense.
On the other hand, "slummy Projects" are often the result of deep town, state and federal government involvement in the development of such housing. Other than the public purse and policy priorities, government, at every level, is poorly suited to housing development. Good development, like good work in almost any field, is the result of individual talent and focus. Representative government is a forum for grievances and collective responses to common problems. It cannot sustain either an individual vision or focus because it was not created for that purpose. Recognize the limits of town government and you can increase your chances of a good outcome. Decide on your policy goals (affordable, senior, mixed housing, mixed-use, etc.); identify your broad design requirements (not slummy, consistent with character of the area, etc.); recognize that your acquisition/initial development costs are minimal due to the generosity of the donor. Then decide on a process to get the property into the hands of a developer who you feel confident can fulfill your broad policy/design values with a realistic business plan. Let them bear the risk/responsibility for the project, but most importantly, let them do their work. The more you allow yourselves to revisit your choices and the longer the town remains involved in the development once a plan has been established, the greater the ultimate cost and the more the ultimate design will reflect a least common denominator of citizens' dislikes.
A more appropriate Norwich example of the risks of town government involvement might be the bandstand controversy -- a cautionary tale of handing design and project leadership to committees.
I have a great affection for the mill site and respect Mr. Toler's expressed goals. I hope the Thetford community can make a wise decision on its role in redevelopment of this site -- providing the vision, but leaving the specifics to a developer and, most importantly, respecting the necessary limits that entails. Best of luck.
Watt Alexander
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Special Meeting Notices
I'm afraid I've become a perennial crank, but I want to express a concern regarding the recent notices posted here and on the town email lists:
THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE NORWICH SELECTBOARD
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Time: 5:00 PM
Place: Tracy Hall, Multipurpose Room
Agenda: VLCT Workshop on the Roles of the Manager and of the Selectboard and Leadership and Management Roles of the Selectboard
-- and --
A Community Discussion on Norwich Town Highways & Community Facilities
Wednesday, May 6 at 7 PM
Multi-Purpose Meeting Room
Tracy Hall
TOPICS:
Highways • Roads • Bike Paths • Trails
Improvements • Maintenance • New Facilities
Park & Ride
Recreation Facilities
Playing Fields • Pool • Access to River
New facilities
Other Community Facilities
PURPOSE:
An opportunity for community discussion in an informal atmosphere with all ideas and comments welcome
Provide guidance to Town
Provide ideas for the Norwich Town Plan
Basic information will be available on projects underway or planned for immediate future
- - - -
These are both important and useful meetings which directly address persistent concerns/conflicts in town. I applaud the effort to put them together and hope as many interested residents as possible can attend. I'm concerned that public notice for both of these meetings went out Monday afternoon, barely 48 hours prior to the meetings. I'm not interested in open meetings law implications or theories about cabals, etc. I'm simply concerned that a couple days is pretty short notice and will necessarily mean some people will not attend due to other commitments and/or not reading the notices in time. There may very well be good reasons why these notices could not go out earlier, but the net effect is a further gap between Tracy Hall and the rest of us -- not anyone's intent.
Every year, Town Eating discussion ultimately arrives at the question of how to help townspeople become more involved. Every year, some committee or town official takes it on the chin unfairly for decisions made at public sessions by people who weren't in attendance when the decision was discussed. There's no simple answer, but diligent efforts to give people a couple weeks warning of important events is certainly part of it. Businesses looking to drum up sales or raise their profile do this pretty well -- giving people plenty of warning and trying to build momentum as the event nears. It's extra work and more effort, but that's what it takes.
As a town government, we lack the profit motive and clear managerial focus to prompt that effort. It's not merely a matter of Selectboard policies. It's really a question of our political culture and a basic recognition that self-government at this scale is an on-going dialogue which, though time-consuming, is good in itself. It's an approach I gather our police chief and town manager have both internalized to some degree as they both continue to make extraordinary efforts to engage the community. As a town, as a community, we can do a better job of making the time for that dialogue and taking the time to maximize opportunities for as many as possible to participate.
THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE NORWICH SELECTBOARD
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Time: 5:00 PM
Place: Tracy Hall, Multipurpose Room
Agenda: VLCT Workshop on the Roles of the Manager and of the Selectboard and Leadership and Management Roles of the Selectboard
-- and --
A Community Discussion on Norwich Town Highways & Community Facilities
Wednesday, May 6 at 7 PM
Multi-Purpose Meeting Room
Tracy Hall
TOPICS:
Highways • Roads • Bike Paths • Trails
Improvements • Maintenance • New Facilities
Park & Ride
Recreation Facilities
Playing Fields • Pool • Access to River
New facilities
Other Community Facilities
PURPOSE:
An opportunity for community discussion in an informal atmosphere with all ideas and comments welcome
Provide guidance to Town
Provide ideas for the Norwich Town Plan
Basic information will be available on projects underway or planned for immediate future
- - - -
These are both important and useful meetings which directly address persistent concerns/conflicts in town. I applaud the effort to put them together and hope as many interested residents as possible can attend. I'm concerned that public notice for both of these meetings went out Monday afternoon, barely 48 hours prior to the meetings. I'm not interested in open meetings law implications or theories about cabals, etc. I'm simply concerned that a couple days is pretty short notice and will necessarily mean some people will not attend due to other commitments and/or not reading the notices in time. There may very well be good reasons why these notices could not go out earlier, but the net effect is a further gap between Tracy Hall and the rest of us -- not anyone's intent.
Every year, Town Eating discussion ultimately arrives at the question of how to help townspeople become more involved. Every year, some committee or town official takes it on the chin unfairly for decisions made at public sessions by people who weren't in attendance when the decision was discussed. There's no simple answer, but diligent efforts to give people a couple weeks warning of important events is certainly part of it. Businesses looking to drum up sales or raise their profile do this pretty well -- giving people plenty of warning and trying to build momentum as the event nears. It's extra work and more effort, but that's what it takes.
As a town government, we lack the profit motive and clear managerial focus to prompt that effort. It's not merely a matter of Selectboard policies. It's really a question of our political culture and a basic recognition that self-government at this scale is an on-going dialogue which, though time-consuming, is good in itself. It's an approach I gather our police chief and town manager have both internalized to some degree as they both continue to make extraordinary efforts to engage the community. As a town, as a community, we can do a better job of making the time for that dialogue and taking the time to maximize opportunities for as many as possible to participate.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Gay Marriage (continued)
Ruth Sylvester and Don Kreis just about cover the "pro" arguments in favor of gay marriage, now a legal fact in Vermont (and -- tentatively -- Iowa). I can't argue with their positions because I agree with their goals. I only question the means.
In my opinion, widespread tolerance of homosexuality in American culture -- like tolerance of divorce, Catholicism, and racial diversity -- is simply a matter of time. How much time will be a function of political and legal strategy by both proponents and opponents.
I'm concerned that, by focusing on "gay marriage" rather than equal rights, we are prolonging the battle potentially by many years and at significant cost.
Specifically, how will those states respond where a majority may be hostile to the concept of extending marriage to homosexual couples?
Amendments to state constitutions are one proven method. Iowa may prove to be an important battleground for that approach.
Federal courts will be hard-pressed to adjudicate these conflicts and the US Supreme Court will eventually have their say. Justice Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas is an instructive primer to the constitutional contours likely to be applied throughout the federal courts. I simply cannot envision Kennedy's equal protection rationale being extended to gay marriage by this iteration of our Supreme Court.
Finally, there may be a federal constitutional amendment campaign restricting marriage to heterosexual relationships.
I am concerned that all of these legal and political battles will now likely revolve around the question of marriage, rather than the question of equal rights. I think that debate plays to the hands of those implacably opposed to gay marriage. We'll see.
Ruth's point about the importance of words and social recognition is well taken. I appreciate the emotional, visceral importance of this issue to many people who have experienced decades marginalized. Unfortunately, Ruth's point cuts both ways. The visceral, emotional content given the word "marriage" is a potent rallying cry for opponents as well. Their viewpoint is not simply a matter of bigotry, something perhaps more difficult to discern from this part of the country.
I also salute Ruth's broader point, suggesting that the road to equality is neither straight nor well-marked. A national struggle over gay marriage may ultimately be the best vehicle for establishing equal rights and broader tolerance. Or that struggle may ultimately result in a national separation of civil union and social marriage ceremony both Maureen and I are advocating. I am cognizant that the "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" critique of gradualism may apply to me here as well.
The adventure continues . . .
In my opinion, widespread tolerance of homosexuality in American culture -- like tolerance of divorce, Catholicism, and racial diversity -- is simply a matter of time. How much time will be a function of political and legal strategy by both proponents and opponents.
I'm concerned that, by focusing on "gay marriage" rather than equal rights, we are prolonging the battle potentially by many years and at significant cost.
Specifically, how will those states respond where a majority may be hostile to the concept of extending marriage to homosexual couples?
Amendments to state constitutions are one proven method. Iowa may prove to be an important battleground for that approach.
Federal courts will be hard-pressed to adjudicate these conflicts and the US Supreme Court will eventually have their say. Justice Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas is an instructive primer to the constitutional contours likely to be applied throughout the federal courts. I simply cannot envision Kennedy's equal protection rationale being extended to gay marriage by this iteration of our Supreme Court.
Finally, there may be a federal constitutional amendment campaign restricting marriage to heterosexual relationships.
I am concerned that all of these legal and political battles will now likely revolve around the question of marriage, rather than the question of equal rights. I think that debate plays to the hands of those implacably opposed to gay marriage. We'll see.
Ruth's point about the importance of words and social recognition is well taken. I appreciate the emotional, visceral importance of this issue to many people who have experienced decades marginalized. Unfortunately, Ruth's point cuts both ways. The visceral, emotional content given the word "marriage" is a potent rallying cry for opponents as well. Their viewpoint is not simply a matter of bigotry, something perhaps more difficult to discern from this part of the country.
I also salute Ruth's broader point, suggesting that the road to equality is neither straight nor well-marked. A national struggle over gay marriage may ultimately be the best vehicle for establishing equal rights and broader tolerance. Or that struggle may ultimately result in a national separation of civil union and social marriage ceremony both Maureen and I are advocating. I am cognizant that the "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" critique of gradualism may apply to me here as well.
The adventure continues . . .
Sunday, March 22, 2009
A Different Take on Gay Marriage
It's been almost a decade since the unprecedented civil debate here in Vermont over the question of gay marriage, equal protection, and civil unions. I will always remember those evenings sitting in our kitchen listening to VPR live coverage of the statehouse open microphone sessions, as Vermont residents took turns speaking their minds for all to hear.
Struggling with my own thoughts, I came to appreciate the crucial difference between civil rights and social recognition.
Civil rights are those individual rights of conscience, choice, and self-determination which are protected by our laws. In Baker v. Vermont, the Vermont Supreme Court recognized the fundamenal inequity faced by homosexual couples who, as legally competent consenting adults, had chosen to share their lives with one another but whose choice had no legal protection. The Court, at that time, ruled that these couples must be given equal protection under the law, but left it to the legislature to devise the means.
The Baker decision framed the debate for the people of Vermont in terms of simple fairness. Whatever one's feelings regarding homosexuality in social or religious terms, one had to face a question of fundamental decency and, ultimately, privacy. If people choose to unite their lives as a household and family, how can our society deny them the right to share the complicated, difficult medical, financial, and end-of-life decisions that viscerally define household and family within broader society?
That argument is both effective and, ultimately, instructive. Doctrinal objections to homosexuality pale for most people in the face of the human choices and human struggle we all share, regardless of sexual orientation. Recognizing our common struggle with those fundamental questions begets greater tolerance of homosexuality and a better appreciation of the civil rights we all wish for ourselves and must afford one another. We saw as much here in Vermont as, in a matter of a couple years, civil unions went from being a controversial bill, to a contested law, to an election year rallying cry, to an uncontested matter of civil law.
That argument doesn't extend to gay marriage.
The problem is marriage. Marriage conflates the legal protections granted a couple's commitment to one another with the social recognition of that union.
Vermont's civil unions debate clearly delineated the two. Civil unions acknowledged that the state has no business discriminating against, or interfering in, the private decision to join oneself legally to another. Like the civil marriage license I got in Tracy Hall before we were married, civil unions do not guarantee that others will approve of that private decision, only that the state acknowledges that choice and the legal privileges that choice entails.
In terms of civil rights and equal protection, both Vermont and homosexual Americans would be better off if, rather than enshrining gay marriage, we instead extended civil unions to heterosexuals, replacing the marriage license with a civil union license. With a universal civil union license, both homosexual and heterosexual unions would be on an equal footing legally. The matter of social acceptance and definition of marriage would be left to the religious and social institutions those couples choose to sanctify and celebrate their union. Many faiths and institutions will allow "gay marriage" ceremonies and many will not. Whether a couple calls themselves married or partners is left to social norms, but the rights inherent in that choice to join together as a household and family would be supported by law.
It would also create the legal framework for extending similar rights throughout the country, not as an "assault on the institution of marriage," but as a matter of fairness and equality. That legal framework, firmly planted in the language and law of civil rights, can prevail across the country and in the federal courts. Both women's sufferage and the civil rights struggle of African-Americans followed a similar course, eventually recognizing that our laws should and must prohibit discrimination, but cannot legislate social acceptance.
In this respect, the gay marriage campaign can only become more entangled in the confusion between social acceptance and civil rights. The longer and harder proponents demand that the social institution of marriage be extended to gay couples as a matter of law, the more their campaign for civil rights will be stymied by a social backlash to an effort to redefine "marriage." A large number of states have already amended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage. I don't see this Supreme Court striking down those state constitutional provisions on the basis that "marriage" is a fundamental right. I do see a real risk of the civil rights question being hijacked by social conservatives nationally and a long, acrimonious campaign to amend the federal constitution to prohibit gay marriage nationally.
The politics of gay marriage may work in Vermont, but it's a loser nationally. The civil rights struggle encapsulated in our pioneering civil unions law may not give good-hearted Vermonters the same sense of accomplishment, but it's a legal juggernaut that could and should eventually transform the nation. I am proud of my state for pioneering that path, forged from an open and difficult debate. This next step, I fear, is actually a step backwards.
Struggling with my own thoughts, I came to appreciate the crucial difference between civil rights and social recognition.
Civil rights are those individual rights of conscience, choice, and self-determination which are protected by our laws. In Baker v. Vermont, the Vermont Supreme Court recognized the fundamenal inequity faced by homosexual couples who, as legally competent consenting adults, had chosen to share their lives with one another but whose choice had no legal protection. The Court, at that time, ruled that these couples must be given equal protection under the law, but left it to the legislature to devise the means.
The Baker decision framed the debate for the people of Vermont in terms of simple fairness. Whatever one's feelings regarding homosexuality in social or religious terms, one had to face a question of fundamental decency and, ultimately, privacy. If people choose to unite their lives as a household and family, how can our society deny them the right to share the complicated, difficult medical, financial, and end-of-life decisions that viscerally define household and family within broader society?
That argument is both effective and, ultimately, instructive. Doctrinal objections to homosexuality pale for most people in the face of the human choices and human struggle we all share, regardless of sexual orientation. Recognizing our common struggle with those fundamental questions begets greater tolerance of homosexuality and a better appreciation of the civil rights we all wish for ourselves and must afford one another. We saw as much here in Vermont as, in a matter of a couple years, civil unions went from being a controversial bill, to a contested law, to an election year rallying cry, to an uncontested matter of civil law.
That argument doesn't extend to gay marriage.
The problem is marriage. Marriage conflates the legal protections granted a couple's commitment to one another with the social recognition of that union.
Vermont's civil unions debate clearly delineated the two. Civil unions acknowledged that the state has no business discriminating against, or interfering in, the private decision to join oneself legally to another. Like the civil marriage license I got in Tracy Hall before we were married, civil unions do not guarantee that others will approve of that private decision, only that the state acknowledges that choice and the legal privileges that choice entails.
In terms of civil rights and equal protection, both Vermont and homosexual Americans would be better off if, rather than enshrining gay marriage, we instead extended civil unions to heterosexuals, replacing the marriage license with a civil union license. With a universal civil union license, both homosexual and heterosexual unions would be on an equal footing legally. The matter of social acceptance and definition of marriage would be left to the religious and social institutions those couples choose to sanctify and celebrate their union. Many faiths and institutions will allow "gay marriage" ceremonies and many will not. Whether a couple calls themselves married or partners is left to social norms, but the rights inherent in that choice to join together as a household and family would be supported by law.
It would also create the legal framework for extending similar rights throughout the country, not as an "assault on the institution of marriage," but as a matter of fairness and equality. That legal framework, firmly planted in the language and law of civil rights, can prevail across the country and in the federal courts. Both women's sufferage and the civil rights struggle of African-Americans followed a similar course, eventually recognizing that our laws should and must prohibit discrimination, but cannot legislate social acceptance.
In this respect, the gay marriage campaign can only become more entangled in the confusion between social acceptance and civil rights. The longer and harder proponents demand that the social institution of marriage be extended to gay couples as a matter of law, the more their campaign for civil rights will be stymied by a social backlash to an effort to redefine "marriage." A large number of states have already amended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage. I don't see this Supreme Court striking down those state constitutional provisions on the basis that "marriage" is a fundamental right. I do see a real risk of the civil rights question being hijacked by social conservatives nationally and a long, acrimonious campaign to amend the federal constitution to prohibit gay marriage nationally.
The politics of gay marriage may work in Vermont, but it's a loser nationally. The civil rights struggle encapsulated in our pioneering civil unions law may not give good-hearted Vermonters the same sense of accomplishment, but it's a legal juggernaut that could and should eventually transform the nation. I am proud of my state for pioneering that path, forged from an open and difficult debate. This next step, I fear, is actually a step backwards.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Good Faith . . .
I've been taking part in an interesting (to me at least) exchange over at "anemic volunteer":
http://anemicvolunteer.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-low-in-norwich.html
The anonymous anti-Alison May slogans were the spark for this exchange. As the discourse has developed, a familiar theme has emerged: How to participate "safely" in the public sphere.
This theme was echoed at Town Eating Day as people there discussed how disrespect and faction are disincentives to civic participation. One proposal floated would have the selectboard meet in open session, but without public comment, so the selectboard could engage with one another in a "safe" environment. The sincerity of that proposal speaks volumes to the state of public discourse in this town.
The "Anyone but Alison" sign author (AKA "Anemic Volunteer") articulates these concerns more personally:
The problem with "rational discourse" is that it is susceptible to being derailed by one party pretending not to understand what the other person says in order to derail the debate. It is the discursive analog to the old union trick of "working to rule." It happens all the time in dysfunctional families - and it happens in small town politics, and it happens at the national level as well. Reasonable discussion depends on good faith. But good faith is not always present.
Good faith is not always present, true enough. Worse, good faith is a fragile state, easily poisoned by even a hint of bad faith.
"Faith" is the operative term. Do we have faith in the good will of our neighbors sufficient to sustain us through their occasional bouts of ill will expressed out of frustration, impatience, or a loss of faith?
Anemic Volunteer suggests -- without meaning to offend -- that I have faith in public discourse because that discourse "works" for me:
Watt seems to think that I should have worked within the system, which is a natural perspective for those for whom the system works, and enjoy working it.
Without wishing to offend, I have to say statements such as these dumbfound me.
Where is this "system?" What am I doing that suggests I work effectively within it, or that it works for me?
This system is us, our legal authority to determine our own collective fate guaranteed by an exceptional Constitution and an enlightened state. What we do with that authority -- how we engage one another within those parameters -- is a rich and varied drama. At its best, it forces us to face our own provinciality as we learn to see other perspectives on an issue. At its worst, it forces us to face our own provinciality as we find we're unable or uninterested in seeing other perspectives. There is no end point, just the journey, because democracy must perpetually renew itself or lapse into something else. The journey is the reward. Faith in that journey, in the renewing capacity of engaging others with humility and respect, becomes good faith because there's really no other choice.
http://anemicvolunteer.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-low-in-norwich.html
The anonymous anti-Alison May slogans were the spark for this exchange. As the discourse has developed, a familiar theme has emerged: How to participate "safely" in the public sphere.
This theme was echoed at Town Eating Day as people there discussed how disrespect and faction are disincentives to civic participation. One proposal floated would have the selectboard meet in open session, but without public comment, so the selectboard could engage with one another in a "safe" environment. The sincerity of that proposal speaks volumes to the state of public discourse in this town.
The "Anyone but Alison" sign author (AKA "Anemic Volunteer") articulates these concerns more personally:
The problem with "rational discourse" is that it is susceptible to being derailed by one party pretending not to understand what the other person says in order to derail the debate. It is the discursive analog to the old union trick of "working to rule." It happens all the time in dysfunctional families - and it happens in small town politics, and it happens at the national level as well. Reasonable discussion depends on good faith. But good faith is not always present.
Good faith is not always present, true enough. Worse, good faith is a fragile state, easily poisoned by even a hint of bad faith.
"Faith" is the operative term. Do we have faith in the good will of our neighbors sufficient to sustain us through their occasional bouts of ill will expressed out of frustration, impatience, or a loss of faith?
Anemic Volunteer suggests -- without meaning to offend -- that I have faith in public discourse because that discourse "works" for me:
Watt seems to think that I should have worked within the system, which is a natural perspective for those for whom the system works, and enjoy working it.
Without wishing to offend, I have to say statements such as these dumbfound me.
Where is this "system?" What am I doing that suggests I work effectively within it, or that it works for me?
This system is us, our legal authority to determine our own collective fate guaranteed by an exceptional Constitution and an enlightened state. What we do with that authority -- how we engage one another within those parameters -- is a rich and varied drama. At its best, it forces us to face our own provinciality as we learn to see other perspectives on an issue. At its worst, it forces us to face our own provinciality as we find we're unable or uninterested in seeing other perspectives. There is no end point, just the journey, because democracy must perpetually renew itself or lapse into something else. The journey is the reward. Faith in that journey, in the renewing capacity of engaging others with humility and respect, becomes good faith because there's really no other choice.
. . . and the Problem With Anonymity
Listening to Anemic Volunteer's justifications for posting anonymous signs has helped me understand my real gripe with anonymity.
There is something fundamentally wrong with feeling entitled to show disrespect towards an individual while hiding behind anonymity or a pen name to protect oneself from a reciprocal, disrespectful, reply. Why are you entitled to indulge your frustration and impatience while seeking to exempt yourself from the frustration and impatience your statements provoke? It's unfair.
But it's also self-deceiving in my opinion.
When we cloak our identity we no longer speak as ourselves. Knowing we're buffered from accountability, we're free to indulge ourselves to an extent we're unlikely to reach otherwise. It is said that character is who you are when no one is looking. The social constraints of our public identities may well be our strongest incentives towards decency and mutual respect. Accountability in the public sphere ultimately rounds off our sharper edges and intimidates the lesser angels of our spirits. What better education can there be for an adult than the consciousness that one be well advised to consider carefully one's words in light of how others may hear them? Anonymity negates those cares, to our collective detriment.
There is something fundamentally wrong with feeling entitled to show disrespect towards an individual while hiding behind anonymity or a pen name to protect oneself from a reciprocal, disrespectful, reply. Why are you entitled to indulge your frustration and impatience while seeking to exempt yourself from the frustration and impatience your statements provoke? It's unfair.
But it's also self-deceiving in my opinion.
When we cloak our identity we no longer speak as ourselves. Knowing we're buffered from accountability, we're free to indulge ourselves to an extent we're unlikely to reach otherwise. It is said that character is who you are when no one is looking. The social constraints of our public identities may well be our strongest incentives towards decency and mutual respect. Accountability in the public sphere ultimately rounds off our sharper edges and intimidates the lesser angels of our spirits. What better education can there be for an adult than the consciousness that one be well advised to consider carefully one's words in light of how others may hear them? Anonymity negates those cares, to our collective detriment.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Seniority Preamble (Cross-Post)
(A comment to this blog post: http://anemicvolunteer.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-i-am-anemic-volunteer-part-1.html)
There is one important function to this seniority preamble in my opinion. It reveals whether an individual has lived in town long enough to have a reasonable chance of gathering why certain walls were built before advocating to tear them down.
The social necessity of testifying to one's term of residency is a nod to the cultural struggle occuring here in Norwich and throughout rural America to some degree. At its worst, that struggle flares up in the form of a Ruth Dwyer and the "Take Back Vermont" sloganeering of a few years back. At its core, the struggle is far less invidious, but probably much more important.
The rural agricultural traditions of this town and region are giving way to an urban/suburban ethos which values the physical rural character of the place, but runs roughshod over the rural character of the community and its institutions. In the past two decades this town has abandoned traditional town meeting, instituted a town manager form of government, and professionalized its police force and fire department. These changes aren't necessarily bad, but they signify a departure from the libertarian self-reliance and consensual interdependence of the community and institution which they replace.
I'm as guilty as anyone in town, spending some time on the town manager review committee and toiling for some years in an effort to bureaucratize land use regulation in town.
I don't think having spent my entire life in Norwich would have changed my views -- there have been plenty of life long residents behind these efforts as well.
I do think I've been around long enough to recognize some of the costs to these changes, enough to question those costs at least. And they aren't insignificant, but that's another topic.
There is one important function to this seniority preamble in my opinion. It reveals whether an individual has lived in town long enough to have a reasonable chance of gathering why certain walls were built before advocating to tear them down.
The social necessity of testifying to one's term of residency is a nod to the cultural struggle occuring here in Norwich and throughout rural America to some degree. At its worst, that struggle flares up in the form of a Ruth Dwyer and the "Take Back Vermont" sloganeering of a few years back. At its core, the struggle is far less invidious, but probably much more important.
The rural agricultural traditions of this town and region are giving way to an urban/suburban ethos which values the physical rural character of the place, but runs roughshod over the rural character of the community and its institutions. In the past two decades this town has abandoned traditional town meeting, instituted a town manager form of government, and professionalized its police force and fire department. These changes aren't necessarily bad, but they signify a departure from the libertarian self-reliance and consensual interdependence of the community and institution which they replace.
I'm as guilty as anyone in town, spending some time on the town manager review committee and toiling for some years in an effort to bureaucratize land use regulation in town.
I don't think having spent my entire life in Norwich would have changed my views -- there have been plenty of life long residents behind these efforts as well.
I do think I've been around long enough to recognize some of the costs to these changes, enough to question those costs at least. And they aren't insignificant, but that's another topic.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Political Signs
An interesting question was raised this evening at Town Meeting by Jim Adler at the very end of the meeting. He rose to speak against a campaign sign which appeared in front of the Simpson townhouses Monday morning. The sign read something like "Alison May - Not!"
Jim spoke against the negative sentiment expressed in the sign, arguing that there was no place for negative campaigning such as this in a small town. He went on to state that he had removed the sign on his own initiative and, if anyone felt their First Amendment right to free speech had been infringed by that removal, they should speak to him directly.
I thought for a moment to rise and express my own view on the matter, particularly as Jim's statement received a good deal of applause, but it was late and people were ready to go home. So I'll state it here: I disagree with Jim on both points and believe his sentiments and actions ultimately illustrate why the First Amendment is necessary.
I first saw the sign in question driving out of town this morning. I do not endorse or support either Alison May or Sharon Racusin in this race so my susceptibility to partisan outrage may be rusty here. My first thought when I saw the sign was, "Does Sharon Racusin realize this sign is out here?" I don't know the answer but understand she is away.
To my mind, such a negative statement raised the question whether Sharon supported that kind of campaigning. If not, I felt, she had perhaps been done a disservice by whoever placed the sign. On the other hand, if Sharon actually supported that kind of campaigning, voters could make their own conclusions about her methods. The real menace of the sign was not, in my mind, the negative statement towards Alison May, but the implication Sharon Racusin was behind it -- an implication Sharon is not around to disavow or defend.
By removing the sign, Jim Adler unilaterally shut down a debate which might well have developed in a direction quite different from his initial, visceral reaction. Norwich voters have steadily punished divisive candidates over the past few election cycles and the possibility those signs might backfire would be a far stronger disincentive to that kind of campaigning than any scolding at the waning moments of town meeting might do. Instead we're left to decide between negative campaigning and self-anointed censors of political speech. Personally, I prefer negative campaigning because I can vote against them.
I also disagree with the implication of Jim's challenge to those who placed the signs -- taunting them to come speak to him directly if they felt he had infringed on their right to free speech. Want to know why Vermont towns continue to abandon open floor voting at town meeting for the secret Australian ballot? Look no further. The right to one's own conscience within a democracy does not easily survive the opprobrium of exposing one's views to the self-certain righteousness of certain neighbors. Jim may feel very strongly that there's no place for negative campaigning in Norwich, but why does that sentiment trump the sign-maker's apparently equally strong feeling that there's no place for Alison May on the Norwich Selectboard? In a nation of laws it does not. Our Constitution says protect the right to free speech and trust the people to determine whether the speaker is an idiot. Idiots can't keep their mouths shut for long. On the other hand, the power to silence deprives not simply the right to speak out, but also the right to hear what is said, think about it, and decide for oneself.
Jim, in my opinion you've acted rashly both in removing the sign and trumpeting the fact at town meeting. I hope some of the many who applauded you this evening will weigh in here to help me understand what was laudable about it.
And next time, please, instead of removing the sign that offends you, put up a sign right next to it saying, "Is this what we want in town government?" or "Is this leadership?" or maybe just a sign with an arrow pointing at the offender saying "I'm with stupid."
Jim spoke against the negative sentiment expressed in the sign, arguing that there was no place for negative campaigning such as this in a small town. He went on to state that he had removed the sign on his own initiative and, if anyone felt their First Amendment right to free speech had been infringed by that removal, they should speak to him directly.
I thought for a moment to rise and express my own view on the matter, particularly as Jim's statement received a good deal of applause, but it was late and people were ready to go home. So I'll state it here: I disagree with Jim on both points and believe his sentiments and actions ultimately illustrate why the First Amendment is necessary.
I first saw the sign in question driving out of town this morning. I do not endorse or support either Alison May or Sharon Racusin in this race so my susceptibility to partisan outrage may be rusty here. My first thought when I saw the sign was, "Does Sharon Racusin realize this sign is out here?" I don't know the answer but understand she is away.
To my mind, such a negative statement raised the question whether Sharon supported that kind of campaigning. If not, I felt, she had perhaps been done a disservice by whoever placed the sign. On the other hand, if Sharon actually supported that kind of campaigning, voters could make their own conclusions about her methods. The real menace of the sign was not, in my mind, the negative statement towards Alison May, but the implication Sharon Racusin was behind it -- an implication Sharon is not around to disavow or defend.
By removing the sign, Jim Adler unilaterally shut down a debate which might well have developed in a direction quite different from his initial, visceral reaction. Norwich voters have steadily punished divisive candidates over the past few election cycles and the possibility those signs might backfire would be a far stronger disincentive to that kind of campaigning than any scolding at the waning moments of town meeting might do. Instead we're left to decide between negative campaigning and self-anointed censors of political speech. Personally, I prefer negative campaigning because I can vote against them.
I also disagree with the implication of Jim's challenge to those who placed the signs -- taunting them to come speak to him directly if they felt he had infringed on their right to free speech. Want to know why Vermont towns continue to abandon open floor voting at town meeting for the secret Australian ballot? Look no further. The right to one's own conscience within a democracy does not easily survive the opprobrium of exposing one's views to the self-certain righteousness of certain neighbors. Jim may feel very strongly that there's no place for negative campaigning in Norwich, but why does that sentiment trump the sign-maker's apparently equally strong feeling that there's no place for Alison May on the Norwich Selectboard? In a nation of laws it does not. Our Constitution says protect the right to free speech and trust the people to determine whether the speaker is an idiot. Idiots can't keep their mouths shut for long. On the other hand, the power to silence deprives not simply the right to speak out, but also the right to hear what is said, think about it, and decide for oneself.
Jim, in my opinion you've acted rashly both in removing the sign and trumpeting the fact at town meeting. I hope some of the many who applauded you this evening will weigh in here to help me understand what was laudable about it.
And next time, please, instead of removing the sign that offends you, put up a sign right next to it saying, "Is this what we want in town government?" or "Is this leadership?" or maybe just a sign with an arrow pointing at the offender saying "I'm with stupid."
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
credit crisis for everyone
An entertaining, fundamentally sound, animated illustration of the current credit crisis well worth your time:
http://www.crisisofcredit.com
http://www.crisisofcredit.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)