Kauffman Park and some historical insight

[mjkuhns]

This seems like a good moment to revisit a brief but fascinating thread about the origin of Kauffman Park Friends.

The last five posts in this 2009 thread are worth reading, or re-reading for those who were around then. Besides documenting how KPF began and why, it also offers some remarkable comments by then-mayor Ed Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald's comments seem to offer some insight into how government in Lakewood has perceived public participation. One Observer asks "Mr. Mayor, isn't it self-defeating to wait until a development plan reaches the 'critical mass' of having the parcels sold and financing in place to start voicing opposition to it? Isn't it easiest to have a voice in the process before the money starts flowing?"

Fitzgerald responds that a public discussion means that "Residents and business owners… become agitated." Often, he adds, this is needless because a proposal may come to nothing. In the case of Kauffman Park, he declares with apparent annoyance that "Because of the proliferation of rumors, however they started, we'll have to start that public process now [emphasis added]."

In fairness, Fitzgerald points to a golden moment when proposals are far enough along to discuss, but early enough for meaningful public participation. Personally I think this is fanciful in practice; there's something of a universal tradition among local-government activists that the gap between official definitions of "it's still speculative and too soon for public input" and "we're too far along to make changes now, we need to move forward" lasts about 1/10th of a second.

But beyond that, I think the basic attitude informing the comments is significant. Public participation, as described here, is at best a necessary evil. That it will automatically mean "agitated" citizens is taken for granted. The ideal outcome is to avoid it whenever possible, and when that isn't possible, treat it as a headache that "we'll have to" manage.

I disagree vehemently with both perception and policy, here. But it does seem valuable as insight to how people who practice this approach might rationalize it.

[Mark Kindt]

During my entire tenure in public service at both the State and Federal levels, I answered my office telephone myself. No screening. No filters. If any person called me, they talked to me directly. This was simply a basic part of my duty to the public as an appointed official.

An elected official who doesn't understand this has a short career.

The former House Majority Leader Tip O'Neill reminds us that "All politics is local".

[Bridget Conant]

An elected official who doesn't understand this has a short career.

And Ed Fitzgerald certainly had a short career!

[Michael Deneen]

During my entire tenure in public service at both the State and Federal levels, I answered my office telephone myself. No screening. No filters. If any person called me, they talked to me directly. This was simply a basic part of my duty to the public as an appointed official.

An elected official who doesn't understand this has a short career.

The former House Majority Leader Tip O'Neill reminds us that "All politics is local".

Tip's days are long past......hiding (whether it be a specific plan or the actual officeholder his or her self) from constituents is "The New Normal".
Locally, we've seen Team Fitzy/Summers running this playbook for ten years.
At the federal level, look at the horrified GOP Congressional reps that refuse to do town halls since they voted to end ObamaCare. Those "snowflakes" are wetting their pants.

This new paradigm has emerged due to some new factors:
* The decline of newspapers: Many papers have folded, and those that remain are a shadow of their former selves. The PD, for example, has shrunk from an editorial staff of over 350 to a staff of 75. There is no capacity to do any kind of investigative or confrontational journalism. Even more importantly, there is no will to confront politicians....everyone is afraid to alienate their advertisers.

*Social Media: Candidates and office holders can now totally bypass the media and constituent contact by using Facebook or Twitter. Look no further than the Orange Clown in the White House. Locally, we see stuff like "Jen Pae's Fake Community Facebook Page"..... a government outlet masquerading as a citizen's effort.
Websites provide another means to deliver talking points to constituents in an unfiltered manner....without the risk of follow up questions.

*Segregated media: We no longer live in a world of 3 TV stations and 2 local newspapers. Back in the day, these were the "gatekeepers" of information. If a government official wanted airtime for their message, they had to sit down with someone like Ted Koppel or Tom Beres and be subjected to difficult questions.
Nowadays there are TV news networks designed for each political taste....where talking points can be spoon fed to the public. Any contrary information broadcast by the other networks is dismissed as "fake news". Talk radio has this same dynamic, as do countless blogs, podcasts, web shows, social media pages, etc.

[Dan Alaimo]

The last thing I was told is that there are no plans to use it for anything other than a park.

That said, stand in the middle of the park and look at through the eyes of the developers and see a prime parcel ripe for Lakewood's real estate market; look at it through the eyes of a cash-strapped City Hall and see a way to raise funds by selling it; look at through the eyes of the residents and see an extension of our backyards and a plus for our housing values, as well as a recreational area and some precious green space in a densely populated city.

It's hard for me to imagine that they won't be back for another run at developing the park. I've been dismayed that the City has not invested much in it besides the all-purpose trail (which I use heavily) and many trees. I hope my dismissal from the park group results in such investment, but if not, I will be in a better position to join with others to resist development efforts - whenever they are made public.