Heard from two sources: The people petitioning for a vote on the $3 million streetscape project in Downtown Farmington may have the 700 signatures they need
Think about this for a moment. If the rumor proves true, then a handful of people, going door to door and standing out in the cold, have essentially brought a three-year downtown revitalization project to its knees. It’s an incredibly powerful statement about the ability of citizens to have an impact on local government.
It’s just a shame they’ve chosen this particular impact.
The streetscape project, in all its imperfect glory (because you just cannot please everyone) would change the face of Downtown Farmington. With sidewalk space expanded by “bump outs,” residents could enjoy more outdoor seating and dining. Crossing Grand River wouldn’t feel like darting across a multi-lane highway. Parents wouldn’t have to worry about a three-year-old slipping away and darting into traffic that rarely moves at the posted speed limit. And truthfully, why would anyone be worried about the needs of a motorist whose sole purpose is to get through Downtown Farmington as quickly as possible? Bump outs slow traffic and allow drivers to see what our community has to offer.
For the past three years, countless hours have been devoted to the Main Street program. Core volunteers have made personal sacrifices of time and energy, and a vote opposing the streetscape project would likely be a devastating personal loss to them. Still, increasing citizen participation has proved a constant struggle. Even the Downtown Development Authority has had problems finding members of its own board willing to chair Main Street committees, the way the program was meant to run.
The conduct of our city council hasn’t helped much. When faced with a petition to demand a vote on the streetscape, officials blinked. Instead of simply allowing the petitions to run their course, they called yet another public meeting. This forced petitioners to start over, and gave them a huge boost of confidence, because the problem wasn’t a lack of information. It was a lack of consensus.
You don’t build consensus by providing your opponents with more information. You build consensus by really listening to what they have to say.
A lot of people in town, including me, never dreamed Hank Borgman and his army would be able to gather 700 petition signatures. If they have, if all those signatures remain unchallenged, it would behoove city and DDA officials to personally sit down with each and every one of those citizens, and just listen.
–Joni Hubred-Golden
Michigan Woman Blogger
2 Comments
March 21, 2008 at 11:22 am
I really haven’t followed the streetscape project other than to watch with interest the battle between Hank and the City Council. I don’t know if the plan is good or bad. There seem to be valid arguments on both sides. One opinion I do hold is that the Council deserves to be slapped (politically) for forcing the petitioners to start over. That was a blatant attempt to impede the right of citizens to petition. Because of that, I hope Hank has the signatures needed to put the project to a vote. If the project has merit for the majority of Farmington voters, let them decide it.
March 26, 2008 at 12:29 am
I concur with Ms. Hubred-Golden’s take on the subject: While representing a certainly determined effort by a small group of people to affect governmental action, it’s very sad that they’ve chosen to use that energy to try and derail this particular project.
We’re all aware that government “action” is usually accomplished at a snail’s pace. An infirm snail, at that. With all the time and money spent on deliberation, research, planning and the like, it’s a refreshing thing to witness actual, tangible progress taking place before one’s eyes – even when the result does not encompass everything that everyone wants.
The greater issue is this: What kind of message does this send to those who would potentially consider investing in our downtown, especially in a floundering economy, when every positive point makes a difference? When the powers that be, or even the people who elect them demonstrate their unwillingness to invest in their own downtown, why would anyone want to commit their money to it?
Those who always oppose most any action that’s been proposed or taken in regards to the city’s revitalization are in effect stating to the world that the status quo (empty stores, ever more speedy traffic, little pedestrian action) is far preferable to the absolutely terrifying prospect of change in any form. At it’s very basis, that’s what this is – a fear-based, reflexive stab at what they perceive to be ‘menacing’ icons. And while, in most cases, I’m all for iconoclasm (when deserved), I’m sad to say that I think this effort, and the energy expended in this case, is misguided.