The View from Here: Elected officials don’t always agree
I had the experience of attending the Public Chapter 1101 Coordinating Committee’s 20-year growth plan meeting Thursday.
Although it’s a less-than-desirable subject, I was curious about this meeting after the city failed to pass the committee’s previous plan about two weeks ago.
The growth plan was debated again by the coordinating committee in an attempt to get something passed and sent back to the cities for ratification in time for the approaching July state deadline.
While attendance was sketchy at best, the coordinating committee people who were there sat on one side of the room while city officials, armed with their attorney, sat on the other.
I thought all of this was supposed to bring everybody closer together, but it didn’t seem so. At least that’s the impression I got in less than a half-hour’s time.
Immediate discussion appeared civil. The planners were highlighting different areas on the maps. City leaders and county officials were openly debating, “If this, then what?” Then, apparently not liking what he heard, one alderman simply got up and left the building.
As he headed for the door, the rest of the aldermen there and their attorney followed suit. I was invited along and I admit, I was curious about what was about to occur.
Now I’ve always heard tales about the city and county’s inability to get along on different subjects and generalizations about local gridlock, but as I was standing outside, I realized I had never really laid witness to it. This spectacle – city leaders standing outside, while county and coordinating committee members stayed inside – seemed strange to me There was no knock-down, drag-out fight, but it seemed strange nevertheless.
But what do I know? Apparently, a quasi agreement was worked out at the end where neither side would lay claim to the disputed western area for five years, and that’s progress.
And, the coordinating committee initially appeared to agree with the city’s newest position that their urban growth boundaries should be wider at the north and south, which was a sticking point above and beyond the western urban growth boundary dispute.
If that agreement is formally made and if the newest version of the plan can clear the county commission and the city, it seems this debate may be over.
I can appreciate every leader’s willingness and duty to serve their constituents as best they can (the disputed areas are supposedly going to grow tremendously, which is reputed to benefit whoever gets claim to the area) on a political (and financial) level.
But there’s no reason to be huddling in corners, or outside of buildings. I think I just had a different expectation about negotiating. I thought both sides would sit around one table and open things up.
If this is such a great place to live, we should do that. We expect everyone to be smart enough to agree to disagree and compromise as best they can. That’s all I was hoping for.
In the best case scenario, all sides can agree and this monstrosity called 1101 – feared for several years and which caused a failed referendum on a metropolitan style of government – will be over. In the worst case scenario, someone outside this area will make decisions for us.
I’ve inherited this subject from previous reporters who spent countless hours toiling over the brown advisory guide that spells out the implementation of 1101. It’s been passed on for years and is starting to fray. Let’s get a diplomatic compromise and let us throw this book away.
(Amy Satterwhite is a reporter for the Standard. She can be reached at 473-2191.)