 |
| True Democracy requires True Freedom of Speech. |
By Mimi Steel
These days, if you look at most government meetings that require
public input, they are billed as “visioning sessions to build consensus”.
To the untrained ear, this sounds like a noble goal but the goal of these
sessions is anything but noble. Visioning is a term of art that refers to
the Delphi Technique. The technique was designed to make sure that the
public “chooses” the outcome desired by the organizers. A good way to
describe “ visioning” is that it is the meeting equivalent of a multiple
choice test, except that the correct choice(s) or best answer(s) are
probably not one of the options and there is no place for mark “none of the
above.”
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) are in the middle of developing a
25 year soviet style top down plan that combines housing, transportation and
land use. This regional plan would force some drastic changes
to communities throughout the region (7 million people in 9 counties and 109
cities). Until a year ago, very few people were aware of the plan.
Those who were aware were generally stakeholders who stood to benefit from the
policies and their uniformed/misinformed surrogates. Then
suddenly some Bay Area concerned citizens crashed the party and the game changed.
They quickly realized that the sessions, conducted using “visioning,” were
manipulative and deceptive .
With average citizens showing up at these meetings and voicing
their dissatisfaction with the plan and the disingenuous meeting format,
MTC-ABAG realized they had a potential public relations disaster on their
hands. Board Member Ecklund expressed concerns that the process was not
successful on July 19, 2012, listen here. The
MTC-ABAG board discussed that the visioning sessions were “painful” on November
9, 2012, listen here .
Both videos clearly acknowledge there were problems with the execution of the public
outreach sessions. So they changed the format for the new sessions coming
up in January 2013 in a letter entitled Plan Bay Area Public
Engagement Letter dated December 7, 2012 . Different format,
same objective of giving the appearance of public input while controlling the
outcome of the debate.
It’s time for MTC-ABAG to come clean and develop a format that
insures fair, honest and open dialog at the next round of public input sessions
to discuss Plan Bay Area / One Bay Area. Here are some suggestions:
- Public outreach meetings for One Bay
Area (Plan Bay Area) must be conducted in the evening in every county to allow
working, taxpaying citizens to attend.
- Sessions must be televised and covered
on local radio programs in each county so that
the public really does have an opportunity to get engaged and weigh in on
this
- Promoters, supporters and surrogates of
MTC/ABAG must be clearly identified as they have a vested interest in
promoting the favored plan. These entities or individuals will not be
eligible to vote on the plans.
- The format must be
changed from the previous “visioning sessions” to an open forum where a
panel of concerned citizens can present information on each of the key
areas. Each panel will have 10 minutes to present or refute MTC/ABAG
arguments presented to date. This format will provide for diversity of
opinion and give citizens their fair share of time to speak on these
subjects:
- The effectiveness of smart
growth concepts—where have these concepts been successfully employed?
Where have they not performed as claimed, and the consequences
- The issue of public transit
vs individual automobile
- The issue of forced,
subsidized high density housing near mass transit
- The issue of whether zoning
authority should lie with a nine-county panel rather than locally elected city
councils and planning boards:
- The ethics of demanding
that a city comply with the One Bay Plan or
lose their road repair funds.
- The assumption that you can
balance jobs and housing to insure minimum commutes
- MTC-ABAG must present
the annual measured and recorded GHG levels for all nine Bay Area
Counties from 2000-2010 to comply with California Executive Order
5-3-05..By presenting these figures MTC/ABAG will provide the 2010
baseline GHG levels for periods going forward. If measured (not
calculated) GHG did not go down then –on what basis can you assure us
that this 2030 plan will accomplish any reductions? If it did go down,
what proof do you have that your plans were the actual cause of the
reduction?
The taxpaying, concerned citizens of the Bay Area are awake and
aware of what is going on. We are not going away . We want an
honest debate on the issues. If citizens decide they do not want the plan
for their town or county, they should be free to walk away from it
without any repercussions, such as loss of road repair funds. We look
forward to MTC-ABAG rethinking their public input strategy or there will be
more “painful” experiences moving forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment