Brain Freeze
So many issues, so little brain activity…
There have been so many issues raised and decisions being made recently, that it has been difficult to even consider what to focus on. That, in a nut shell, is why I think most people don’t spend much time following the intricacies of government. At the end of the day, it is easier to hope that the right decisions get made, because often they do, and to save up ones mental capacity for the office, family, children or So You Think You Can Dance (seriously 2.5 – 4 hours a week is a serious commitment!).
We’ve recently had two council discussions regarding gas stations in Alameda. In one, a new station located in a large shopping area, a councilmember abstained from voting (not quite sure why, there didn’t appear to be a conflict of interest, but I may have missed the explanation) and a couple of weeks later voted to expand the hours of a gas station located in the heart of a residential community. I have spent the past 24 hours trying to understand that decision and how it makes sense. I’ve been unsuccessful. (Personally, I think the Valero Gas solution was a good compromise, I wonder what the past owners, who have requested similar expansions, are wondering. The council found a way to test the promises/contentions of applicant and retain the ability to act if the neighbors concerns are borne out. Solomon couldn’t have done much better.)
Tuesday night, the council voted for a resolution against the Iraq War. Last year, a similar resolution didn’t pass because the vote was 2-2. This year, it was unanimous. Some have questioned the change of heart of Beverly Johnson and Doug deHaan who voted against the previous resolution a year ago. Obviously a year makes a big difference. Clearly we shouldn’t chastise people simply for changing their minds. On the other hand, one should look at the reasons behind the first vote and see if the passage of time has changed things. If one votes against because they don’t feel the citizenry is supportive of a project and then senses a shift in the cultural zeitgeist, fine. But if the decision was about the role of the city council in addressing national issues, no amount of time changes that. The war going really badly now doesn’t change the intended role of the city council. It’s probably a fair question to ask, what’s different now.
And then there’s the question of “what’s the value of public comment?” Obviously, public comment, in all its forms, is clearly important and vital. But does one measure the volume? Does it matter who makes it (“some old faces” vs. “first-timers”)? It seems that whatever “side” of a discussion turns out the most people likes to point out how many people showed up to talk for their issue. Long standing issues like development, transportation, etc. are going to have core-advocates who stick it out, should these voices lose their voice because they’ve decided to put the time into getting involved?
The job of a public official is to listen to all the comments they receive and consider them as one input among the many professional and other inputs they receive. To a certain extent, on some issues, public input becomes a political theater, who can turn out the most people in order to claim that their side wins and the decision should be made in their favor. As if 20 people could possibly represent the views of an entire city and the people who show up are somehow statistically representative of the city as a whole. (case in point, surveys of Alamedans about Target coming to Towne Center showed a 2/3 approval in the city, yet speakers at the council meeting were overwhelmingly against it.)
And there’s always the question as to “what” people are showing up against. Petitions circulate faster and more frequently than ever it seems. Often, the wording is so broadly created as to make them worthless. Who would be against safety for school children? Less traffic on “our” street? Support for local business? Etc. Signers often add their signature without even understanding the underlying issue they are being asked to address (or worse, getting a bad explanation). This is/was the issue on the Oak-to-Ninth project petition that was rejected by Oakland’s City Attorney. And nevermind that petitions are not a representative sample.
Public input is incredibly important, it not only allows every citizen a voice in the process, it also allows them to add information to the conversation, info that might be missed by professionals, or people not directly affected by the decisions that are being made. Sometimes, it brings to light key concerns that were missed earlier, and decisions are overturned.
That having been said, one of the truisms of community activism is that it’s always easy to turn people out against something. The overload in our lives that was mentioned earlier leads people to assume that things will work themselves out and keeps people who support or are agnostic on an issue at home. Using scorecards for public input isn’t much of a way to run a city.
The City Council made some good decisions this week on both the Iraq Resolution and the Valero Gas issue. They weren’t good because they voted along with the majority of speakers, they were good because they were the best decisions that could have been made, regardless of how many speakers were for or against them.
Leave a Reply