Unresolved
WHERE THE NEWSPAPER STANDS
Copyright © 2005, Daily Press
October 26, 2005
Some people still want to speak out about Buckroe
The people - you know, as in "government of the people, by the people, for the people" - will have their say.
When the Hampton City Council laid out the Oct. 11 meeting about the Buckroe Master Plan, it did not include an opportunity for citizens to speak in their own voices. That made for a calm evening, which was what officials wanted. But the voices that were not heard that night may not be content with being silenced.
The meeting was intended to allow the public to learn about and provide feedback about the plan, which has been adopted, with the bayfront component - which calls for housing on now-vacant land near the water - held out for "tweaking." But the problem with that pesky public: They don't always just want to listen. Sometimes they want to speak, and they want their representatives to do the listening.
Given the continuing controversy over building on those bayfront lots, the tight control of this meeting may yet have unintended reverberations.
Although time was allowed for the "alternative perspective" to the city's plan to be presented, the leaders of the group opposing building on the green space near the waterfront were not allowed to speak for themselves. Instead, their mouthpiece was a city employee. While he seemed to strive to represent their views accurately and fairly, he could not do the one thing only they could do: convey their passion, their feelings about the space they're trying to save. What he couldn't help doing was striking an odd note: a representative of officialdom trying to articulate the views of those protesting officialdom's plans.
The only opportunities the nearly 500 citizens present had to participate in were carefully controlled. They were allowed to ask only "clarifying questions" and had to submit them in writing, to be asked, in different words, by a moderator. If this method is used to keep the logistics flowing along - it's not unusual with large groups - it's important to design the process so people feel their questions are actually asked. The fact that some who submitted questions objected to the way they were reformulated is another cause for concern.
While the primary purpose of the meeting was to inform, it was also, officially, "to provide an opportunity for citizens to provide feedback to City Council and city staff." That feedback was confined to a one-page survey attendees dropped off on their way out. They should have been allowed to state their views directly to the council members and staff, in person, in this venue, so that the other citizens present could hear what their fellows were thinking.
Citizens come equipped with opinions. That makes the democratic process messy, contentious, time-consuming and, occasionally, rude. None of those is justification to prevent people from saying what they think, especially about a project that will involve public assets and money and cast the future of the community in which most of the audience lives. In the end officials are not obligated to do what opinion-holders demand - and in this case, the city's plan seems to be the best choice - but they are always well advised to let them speak.
Yes, there have been many meetings about Buckroe, many chances to speak. But the turnout on this rainy evening suggested that the talking isn't done yet, and cutting it off can leave a bad taste in the mouths that are silenced. "The people" should not feel that way about their government, for it does not promote the trust and support Hampton officials need to go forward with their ambitious plans.
That's the lesson Hampton should take from this meeting, aside from any information gleaned specifically about the Buckroe plan. That's the lesson that should be applied in the future, so that the next time, whether it involves Buckroe or any other project, the people will not feel they've been silenced. Because they won't tolerate that. They will be heard.
Copyright (c) 2005, Daily Press
