Actually, Don, I disagree.
"Just do it" was the former Board's attitude when it bought the houses on Burlington. Like so many actions we have seen over the years, it was done without either the basis or the end purpose clearly stated, let alone politically supported. And the result?
What we have seen since the transition in May.
I started a string in April, after the election and before the transition, called "Reconciliation and Progress." I hope for more of that. Staying out of the week-to-week pace of what's happening with the Board of Trustees, I am struck by our need as a village to get behind something bigger than the promises or claims of the last campaign.
The studies you mention were ad hoc, out of order, uncoordinated and incomplete. It has been said repeatedly, and apparently need be said again, that the process goes: Vision to Plan to Zoning. Our history goes something like this: Study to Zone to Argument to New Study to Residential Zoning to TIF fight to...
The clash of absolutes each of these steps occasioned between residents drained the last Board of its political will to address the real issues facing the village. They came to the conclusion, stated many times privately and somewhat publicly, that "We cannot plan here." This was sometimes dressed in a parallel formulation, "We Do Not Need To Plan Here."
Thus the Board became a spent force, and the RCA, recognizing that in the midst of the anti-TIF fight of Spring 2007 (before it even was the RCA), organized and campaigned its way to victory.
(Prior to the April 2007 TIF vote some of us told the Board -- maybe even using this site -- that if they did not get a comprehensive planning process going, then they should expect every initiative as far as the eye could see, to result in ad-hoc attacks and opposition. Given the results of the TIF, the tax hike, the Board-affiliated candidates in the April 2009 election and finally the rocky lots, one may observe the idea was not all wrong.)
My point now is to put the empty lots aside, constitute a Village-wide process and declare that we as a village are going to face these various white elephants together. This will require leadership and guts on the part of the new Board, and true hearts and dedication on the part of the residents. People who participate must bring their facts and arguments, not their biases or preconceived ideas.
Part of the problem with my proposal is that the new Board campaigned on a "no new consultants" platform. Doing this without a real planner/facilitator is probably impossible. Another problem is that our cupboard is fairly bare, so paying for this will mean de-funding something else. All of us -- as I think you portrayed in your post, which sounded a lot like statements heard from Trustees now in the happy hunting ground of post-public life -- are studied out and sick of the whole bloody mess. Finally, we would be starting this in the midst of the worst real estate market since the Great Depression, so we propose anticipating private interest in our Riverside in an environment that does not yet exist.
The alternative is more spats like that we have seen over the rocky lots on Burlington. I am on neither side of that, and I hereby refuse to get involved. But I know reconciliation and progress when I see them, Don, and neither happened there.
It is not about who was right or wrong on the rocky lots. It is only about building a village consensus for what comes next. That requires reconciliation and it will bring progress.
Thanks as always.
Posted Monday Sep 28, 2009 21:50
#