Archive: Opinions

At a public meeting hosted by the Comprehensive Plan Committee one resident attacked the process.  He said the Town is not being transparent or inclusive of citizens in the town.  He also voiced concerns about a possible Town Center.  If he had been paying attention some -- not all -- of his concerns have been addressed, but without making an effort to get the facts he shot first and asked questions later.

"I see us developing a new comprehensive plan without committee assemblage, without making the process very transparent, without trying to involve the community, or at least attempt to in the major modules that are going to be a part of the comprehensive plan," he said.

With at least three Town officials in the room I thought at least one would point out that the very meeting we were attending, billed as the first of a series of meetings to inform the public and get residents' opinions, was an effort to involve the community.  That the committee is made up almost entirely of citizens of the town, not government officials.  That all the meetings are open to the public, and summaries of every meeting has been posted on the Town Web site and available in the Town Hall.

This committee, while not exactly mirroring the 2006 process this person lauded, appears to be doing all the things of substance he accused them of not doing.  Town Planner Jonathan Kanter has repeatedly estimated that the process may take another year to complete, and now that data has been gathered the process is focussing on citizen input and collating and analyzing the data in light of what residents tell the committee.  Is it unreasonable to gather data and try to understand it before approaching the public?

It is true that the committee has been meeting for over a year.  The first public meeting was actually in December for the purpose of explaining the results of a telephone survey that was conducted to get residents' opinions on a variety of issues that would impact the comprehensive plan.  The meeting two weeks ago had 'breakout groups' built into it so that the public could weigh in on four key topics.  One of the comments made that day was that separate meetings should be held on the individual topics so that people who want to participate on more than one could do so.  The committee appeared to make note of the comment and view it favorably.

This citizen also voiced strong concerns that a town center may require taxpayer burdens, increase the likelihood of crime, traffic and noise.  These are concerns of substance, and while the issue of taxpayer burden has been addressed multiple times in various meetings (including the RFP Committee public meetings in which developers said that if they can build at least X number of units they will pay for roads, sewer, lighting, and other necessary infrastructure) that have been reported in the press as well as in minutes available on the town Web site and at the Town Hall, all of these things should be seriously weighed before a decision is made to go forward with a town center.

When people at public meetings claim that public information is not being disseminated, a fellow journalist often whispers to me that they ought to read our newspapers.  As sardonically amusing as that may be to us, the fact is that the meetings are public, and the minutes are easily obtainable.  Documents on the Town Web site can be downloaded from the comfort of your home, and my experience has repeatedly been that when I have a question about some thing the Town is doing that town officials simply answer it unless there is a legal reason not to, in which case they tell me there is a legal reason for not answering.

As for not letting facts get in the way of what people believe, muddying the argument with false accusations does not move the public discussion forward.  Personally I am for a town center, but I agree with that speaker that concerns about traffic, noise, and crime, among others, are legitimate.  If they are not addressed the Town should not go forward with a town center. 

I was surprised that town officials did not leap to the defense of the committee, which is made up of citizens like the person who was slamming them.  These are folks who are giving up a lot of time and effort to do their best to make the comprehensive plan update representative of the majority of the community.  These are not elected officials -- they are just our neighbors who have elected to get involved, find the facts to the best of their ability and come up with a plan that will best serve the community going forward.

Not to mention that all their names are listed on the Town Web site, so you can always call one and ask questions or give opinions.  Meeting minutes and documents are also on the Web site, including the documents from the meeting two weeks ago so that people who could not attend can see survey, demographic, and other information the committee is considering.

Committee members took detailed notes that evening so that every opinion can be folded into whatever plan they eventually craft.  We should all have strong concerns about the future of our community.  If the process of updating the comprehensive plan were, in fact, a closed, opaque one, we should all be attending Town meetings to protest.  But that is not what is happening, and given that information about the process is fairly easily obtained, it shouldn't be so hard to keep the discussion on real issues so that the Town goes into the next eight to ten years with a clear purpose that actually represents the majority of residents.

v10i14