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.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)