The Observation Deck

Can anyone fill me in on the Lakewood Buzz? I note a few gutsy persons posting there with real names and a lot of anonymous self-expression.

I also discovered this from 9-16,

<<One of the main reasons I ran for Mayor in 2003 was because I had grown tired of elaborate plans, unrealistic visions, civic yaking, esoteric discussions, rambling arguments, and overall intellectual gymnastics.

Lakewood needs ACTION. Again, ACTION.>>

[reprinted without permission for the purposes of discussion and review, as permitted by Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.]

***

Hey, what gives?

To me, a pla either elaborates its operations smartly or stupidly. A vision is either unrealistic or realistic because it is determined to be so as a matter of intelligent analysis. Civic yacking necessarily is expressive and can be intelliggently expressive. Esoteric discussions, (no matter what the Mayor means by 'esoteric,' and I'd like to know,) are likely matters of complexity and deep engagement and intelligent understanding of the subject matter. Rambling arguments may be so but are so only in the eye of the beholder. They also may ramble with an intelligent purpose. And, "intellectual gymnastics" begs the question of what causes one to think them so. Although to be an intellectual is presumptive of disciplinary mastery and intelligence.

***

However, the sum total of civic engagement includes all of this. The ideal role of the political leader is to listen to this 'all' as well as respond smartly to the voters' hopes for a better 'tomorrow'.

In the flux of citizen engagement and politics, a lot rides on civic intelligence of *all those concerned* with a city's future.

Let's contrast this with what is many times the case elsewhere. Elects and elites form 'oligarchies' and they actively ram through their sense ('top down') of what will pass muster at the polling place. It may serve the interests of the community or it may not. When it doesn't, at least the idea is to survive this election test.

Writ to the scale of a city, one way to look at it is: 'follow the gold'. Learn what the payoff is for the vested interests. Figure out who has dubbed themselves 'community leaders,' and who believes they have ascended to a rightful place from which they can determine what is good for the little people. Figure out what the self-selecting and validating principles are; is it money, property, tenure, capability, institutional stature, etc. and on and on.

***

One thing that is quickly changing in Lakewood is that any action proposed by leaders or other persons, where it is ramified to effect the citizenry in any substantial way, is now going to be subjected to a rigorous and unyielding intelligent critical process. The game is changed, forever.

I'd say this is on behalf of the citizenry but, obviously, it is the citizenry who are implementing this process of intelligent engagement and intelligent action.

Heck, action alone has come to the end of the line here in Lakewood. The social men/women warriors are showing up to make their different voices heard.

Literally: stick a fork in the idea: intelligence isn't primary. Done with...fini.

Steven,

You have just experienced the reality of leadership in Lakewood today. The disdain expressed is the tip of the iceberg. Anyone with vision and commitment understands the invaluable asset that the "civic yaking, esoteric discussions, rambling arguments, and overall intellectual gymnastics" is to Lakewood. In fact, those are very important pieces of who and what Lakewood is.

The fact is that the frustration level in Lakewood is rising to a critical point. The LO is an example of the community acting out. Non Partisan elections was the community acting out. The recommendation for a city manager was the community acting out. The Grow Lakewood report will show a community acting out. CitiStat is all about a community acting out.

Action, Action, Action? Only by those community members that continue the "civic yaking, esoteric discussions, rambling arguments, and overall intellectual gymnastics."

The others? Just motion, motion, motion.

Miss Motion,

Spoken like a true campaign manager.

Lakewood has come together like no time in the City's history with the Lakewood coalition and the theme: "It's Lakewood's Time!".

We are currently having the busiest construction year in the City's history.

We have more new housing being constructed in Lakewood than in any time in the past 40 years.

Our Building Department is doing more housing inspections than ever before.

After 10 years of talk, the skateboard park is build.

We have increased the number of streets we are reconstructing.

Real estate values continue to climb dramatically.

Our safety forces are now returned to full strength.

We have reduced full time employment at City Hall by 23 workers since Jan. 1, 2004, saving the taxpayers $1,150,000.

and on and on........

Thank you for your continued support.

TJG

And now, if we could just rid ourselves of those stupid sign walkers, everyone could see and enjoy what's been and being accomplished.

Jeff

P.S. Mayor: I'm almost positive that it's MS. MOTION.

Grant that my perspective issues from a weird sort of role: observer of the Observer. Additionally, I cannot view the mix of Lakewood from the point-of-view of long experience in Lakewood. (This begs the question of what my own interest is!)

Nevertheless, Thomas's comments about his perceptions of community talk when he became Mayor, his review of some of his salutary accomplishments, and, Susan's view about her perceptions of a crisis in leadership and jump to a consideration of the place of intelligence, affectuality, and, if there is a crisis, a jump to anxiety, express interesting and hard-to-reconcile differences at least with respect to their being different domains.

They are hard to reconcile just on the face of the two positions' categorical difference: 'action' is concrete, is about doing, whereas anxiety (etc.) is a matter of the psyche, of psychology. Notably, acting out is also action.

However, all actions seem to me to be good will efforts to shape Lakewood's future. The question begged is: what is the nature of anxiety/crisis?

Certainly anxiety does exist. Lakewood is located in a region under severe economic pressures. I'm sure Mayor George is committed to shaping smart actions, just as I'm sure Susan is committed to telling it like it is. (Susan, you could tell us more.)

What I wonder about, and this can resolve questions any person committed to a better Lakewood future might address, is what are the challenges both citizens and their leaders wish to smartly think about and respond to via action?

If Lakewood is rearranging chairs on the deck, what should its citizenry, leadership, be concentrating on that it is not concentrating on right now? If not, what are the concrete current details of actions in response to the most crucial challenges.

This is a question for you both and everybody.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:If Lakewood is rearranging chairs on the deck, what should its citizenry, leadership, be concentrating on that it is not concentrating on right now? If not, what are the concrete current details of actions in response to the most crucial challenges.

This is a question for you both and everybody.

Steve

This is gets very difficult on many levels. Where you can talk freely outside the city, many of us, temper comments and what we say because of the nature of the work we do.

I myself have not fallen back to full blown liberal, and instead of worked at bringing sides together. Likewise Suzanne, is very busy in many projects that do not allow for her to reveal all. And of course the Mayor, has to walk the finest line of all.

An example that was once told to me that makes sense is: I comment on what is a good idea for the southeast corner or Lakewood. But it does not take into account plans I have no knowledge of, and could scuttle or interrupt some of those plans. However if Suzanne mentioned them, they take on more weight because of her involvement, like if the Mayor mentions them, people take them as set in stone. This could help a plan or kill it before it gets started. These are actually heavy outcomes from what some would think are lighthearted discussions.

A wise man once thought the slogan for the paper should be; Expected Unintended Consequences. While this is a fun slogan, it is very much the truth, and should always be in a persons mind.

Just some random thought on your post.

Jim. I could talk freely, sure. Consider how freely I could speak if I just wanted to spin the cannon and fire it willy-nilly.

These are actually heavy outcomes from what some would think are lighthearted discussions.

No doubt persons with direct and vested interests will tend to be discrete to preserve, in your example, their plans, etc. Implicit in this is the idea that this discretion serves a positive purpose. On the other hand, at times it does not.

However, also implicit are questions:

(1) who gets to decide?
(2) who is privvy to or involved in the decision-making process?
(3) when is it a positive action to pull the lid off?
(4) when is it a positive action to keep the lid on?

Surely, it is complicated.

Okay, certain concrete plans might be unfolding now in a kind of protected state. My own opinion? City Hall should always have the lid off except in situations where openness is not possible for legal reasons.

The questions I asked previously, nevertheless, can be addressed short of violations of one's own sense and principals.
-

In large measure, Jim, I am a radical with respect to: democracy, full participation, openness, and, personally, hope the hidden realities get always driven to the surface for the sake of the entire community coming into awareness of the community's entire reality. So it is, my feel for unintended consequences is not that they necessarily should control our personal sense of discretion. (Be discrete for other reasons.)

The point of the 'principle' of unintended consequences, for me, is that there will always be such consequences.

Anyway...I'm a bit of a 17th century cat, a digger:

You noble Diggers all, stand up now, stand up now,
You noble Diggers all, stand up now,
The wast land to maintain, seeing Cavaliers by name
Your digging does maintain, and persons all defame
Stand up now, stand up now.

Your houses they pull down, stand up now, stand up now,
Your houses they pull down, stand up now.
Your houses they pull down to fright your men in town
But the gentry must come down, and the poor shall wear the crown.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

With spades and hoes and plowes, stand up now, stand up now
With spades and hoes and plowes stand up now,
Your freedom to uphold, seeing Cavaliers are bold
To kill you if they could, and rights from you to hold.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

Theire self-will is theire law, stand up now, stand up now,
Theire self-will is theire law, stand up now.
Since tyranny came in they count it now no sin
To make a gaol a gin, to starve poor men therein.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The gentrye are all round, stand up now, stand up now,
The gentrye are all round, stand up now.
The gentrye are all round, on each side they are found,
Theire wisdom's so profound, to cheat us of our ground
Stand up now, stand up now.

The lawyers they conjoyne, stand up now, stand up now,
The lawyers they conjoyne, stand up now,
To arrest you they advise, such fury they devise,
The devill in them lies, and hath blinded both their eyes.
Stand up now, stand up now.

The clergy they come in, stand up now, stand up now,
The clergy they come in, stand up now.
The clergy they come in, and say it is a sin
That we should now begin, our freedom for to win.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The tithes they yet will have, stand up now, stand up now,
The tithes they yet will have, stand up now.
The tithes they yet will have, and lawyers their fees crave,
And this they say is brave, to make the poor their slave.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst Priests, stand up now, stand up now,
'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst Priests stand up now.
For tyrants they are both even flatt againnst their oath,
To grant us they are loath free meat and drink and cloth.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The club is all their law, stand up now, stand up now,
The club is all their law, stand up now.
The club is all their law to keep men in awe,
But they no vision saw to maintain such a law.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

The Cavaleers are foes, stand up now, stand up now,
The Cavaleers are foes, stand up now;
The Cavaleers are foes, themselves they do disclose
By verses not in prose to please the singing boyes.
Stand up now, Diggers all.

To conquer them by love, come in now, come in now
To conquer them by love, come in now;
To conquer them by love, as itt does you behove,
For hee is King above, noe power is like to love,
Glory heere, Diggers all.

'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst Priests, stand up now, stand up now,
'Gainst lawyers and 'gainst Priests stand up now.
For tyrants they are both even flatt againnst their oath,

I object!

Jeff

Stephen

I always go back to the "Manhattan Project" when taking about these issues.

It is a moral issue, a business issue and a life issue to me. What is going on and what will happen.

When the button is pushed, what will/could the outcome possibly be? Does it matter? Some things need to be reported/outed immediately. Brother Petty a perfect example. Many never thought it rose to a level of concern, you and I thought differently almost immediately.

Now let's move to a city problem. A person is legally looking at developing a section of the city. The "business" has talked with the city, and the city sees it as fitting in with their "plan" for the future. the business is legal, clean, and a possible good fit. So the groups starts legally buying property. When does that have to be made public, by who and when.

Well the city would be unwise to play it's hand too early, as other cities could come in and try to put a kibosh on the deal. Residents might share information with each other which would allow it additional person to hold out for more funds than the one before. Or not mention it to the neighbor they did not like, OR be signed into an agreement that forbids them for talking about it.

Now the person on the street might just start talking about it to talk about without giving any thought to possible income. It could in fact kill the whole deal, or slow it down. A responsible person that cares for the city might handle it differently, but talking about it in general terms, but not nailing down the exact spot, plans etc. A person with a competing project could blow the whole thing up, hoping to kill one plan while getting another in it's place.

But that is just me.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:
Surely, it is complicated.

Hi, Steve, Jim, Suzanne, Mayor George and Jeff: I've been following this thread. I like intellectual gymnastics - it helps keeps my mind limber. As you have said it can get rather complicated when we are pondering what to say, when, how much and to whom. There is a certain amount of risk involved in joining the "civic yakking, esoteric discussions."

"There can be no vulnerability without risk; there can be no community without vulnerability; there can be no peace, and ultimately no life, without community." - M. Scott Peck

Stephen Calhoun wrote:The point of the 'principle' of unintended consequences, for me, is that there will always be such consequences.

This sounds so simple. So I jump right in and risk being vulnerable. I have no control over the unintended consequences. I only have control (a sometimes rather feeble control) over my attitudes, my reactions. I have tried to develop a discernment between having "control" and having "influence", and I try to discern my motives, which can be rather uncomfortable at times.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:To conquer them by love, come in now, come in now
To conquer them by love, come in now;
To conquer them by love, as itt does you behove,
For hee is King above, noe power is like to love,
Glory heere, Diggers all.

This was a great ending to the song (poem) you quoted, Steve. This is the "more excellent way".

"...Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails...

And now abide faith, hope, love, these three;

but the greatest of these is love." from I Corinthians 13

I'll let Susan B. Anthony end this post:

"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences."

My Dear Mr. Calhoun

While I'm not sure there are any "sides" to this discussion, per se, I think I tend to come down along the same lines as Mr. O'Bryan. Whether a new idea, proposal, direction is generated through the political powers and forces, or from the grass roots, one imperative remains the same. Before the idea is brought before who must eventual pass upon it, it is necessary that those who will one day set it out for review, first fully explore and investigate their idea. I would much rather a thoroughly considered plan be presented, as opposed to a half baked idea, yet to be vetted. We do this on the Deck, discussing, exchanging ideas and so forth. Perhaps something concrete comes of it, and a specific proposal is developed for presentation to those who will eventually act upon it. Perhaps not. But the process, in and of itself, has merit.

The same is true of political leadership. Ideas are discussed, some discarded, others fleshed out for future implementation. I suppose, if I have a problem with a lack of transparency, it is when a proposal which affects me, is not presented as such, but rather, as a fait accompli. Those that govern must walk a fine line between "brain storming" which, if espoused before fully formulated, appears half baked, and failing to solicit the input of the community in the formulation process. At some point our input is absolutely necessary, lest we have a fait accompli mentality. By the same token, until an idea goes beyond mere preliminaries, expecting a public forum discussion is probably counter productive.

Jeff

Well, in an attempt to make a small edit, I've managed to delete this post. Suffice it to say, that it's probably for the best.

Jeff. Yo.

Whether a new idea, proposal, direction is generated through the political powers and forces, or from the grass roots, one imperative remains the same. Before the idea is brought before who must eventual pass upon it, it is necessary that those who will one day set it out for review, first fully explore and investigate their idea.

By the same token, until an idea goes beyond mere preliminaries, expecting a public forum discussion is probably counter productive.

From my different perspective, the only question is whether the full monty process from idea to implementation to review to readjustment (!) supports better results than any alternative process.

The argument in favor of: 'this is the way its done around here' is favored by the quality of the results. Other factors gain some weight, (or gainsay some weight!) of course, but, in raising what is 'counter productive' I'd go at it in light of what has been produced, and, qualification of the product being better precisely because of factors in the processes that produced it.

The thing is, transparency and opaqueness don't count anywhere as much (as I see it,) as does the quality of process be it transparent or opaque or some combination of the two.

There are so many excellent examples of failed products, plans, developments, laws, ideas, that I'm confident I could present examples of such failures in the context of just about any form of process you could throw at me, the hungry researcher.

One comes to mind: how the air force loaded up its 21st century strike fighter until it could be said to barely be able to fly. The history of development in Cleveland is littered with many examples too. "Garbage in, crap out".

This raises the question of whether any process is built to be later fine tuned by new information, new particpants, different points of view, etc. In other words, is it a truly critical process? Again, I can name many examples of processes that primarily exist to sustain themselves and are so regardless of the quality of their output.

When I have some more time I'll tell of one way to look at development processes, a way which for me etches both complexity and context in a valuable albeit limited construct. For now, I can't embrace a normative scheme unless its constructive features are better elaborated.

We've moved a bit from Jim's view toward functional and structural considerations. But, function and structure are completely concrete ways of evaluating crucial features of how social processes effect quality results.

As for the 'usual ways'... Do they usually work to good effect? ...simple enough and very researchable query.

Susan, I'm working my way closer to your sense too in raising this question.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:...This raises the question of whether any process is built to be later fine tuned by new information, new particpants, different points of view, etc. In other words, is it a truly critical process? Again, I can name many examples of processes that primarily exist to sustain themselves and are so regardless of the quality of their output....

Stephen


At first I wanted to just post a huh? But then towards the end there were some paragraphs that actually contained thought process from this earth.

The paragraph above should have started with, This raises the question why ALL process IS NOT be built to be fine tuned...

As designated viewer from afar, a tip, most of us in Lakewood have learned that when the Mayor addresses Suzanne, or Suzanne addresses the Mayor, it is best to take one step back. At some point sparks will fly.

Jim, I set the earthy bar high. It's all very concrete to me. A challenge provided by our having different perspectives is to understand each others perspective.

"Sparks fly" may or may not signal a possibly productive critical tension between two points of view. One challenge posed by the 'vision' of civic intelligence implemented in a critical process is: how to productively go through those points of tension.

You suggest that I might step back given a particular instance, (a very personal instance between two persons in this case,) but you haven't given a reason to do this. You've said 'it would be best to' do so, but haven't offered why 'stepping back' is preferable.

My approach isn't to personalize this as much as drill down into this instance in impersonal terms. Which is all I can do since I don't know what the personal factors are at all. My premise is: they aren't;t so crucial because the case provided is an excellent one aside from those factors.

What's interesting to me is the status and qualification of various critical processes in Lakewood. As you know, I'm not engaged, at the moment, with those processes except for the ones having to do with The Lakewood Observer.

Although, here we have the critical tension between ACTION and PROCESS, revealed by the differences unfolded in this thread, so here is another case.

What are reasons to not step back? One good reason is to work toward a middle ground where the two sides have a chance to understand better the nature of this problem of difference. I haven't approached this with any interest in the personal aspects. This specific case seems to me worthy of general consideration.

It is a sign of willingness to build intelligent capacity that one would wish to go 'there'. Not that there couldn't be smart reasons not to go there too. None have showed up in this thread. Yet.

The broad question remains: what is valuable about "civic yaking, esoteric discussions, rambling arguments, and overall intellectual gymnastics"?

(By the way, as a characterization, this is encumbered by biasing descriptive language. For example, I don't know what the speaker really means by describing communications as being 'yacking,' 'esoteric,' or 'intellectual gymnastics'. The question begged nevertheless is: what constitutes valuable talk?)

Jeff wrote,

until an idea goes beyond mere preliminaries, expecting a public forum discussion is probably counter productive

which begs the same question: why is this counter-productive? ...not in the abstract but in the case of specific instances, why is it thought to be so?

It's a tough question; I recognize this.