I was a little disappointed with the meager turnout at the landfill meeting. I'm told that--despite my assertions--that the landfill problem is an issue only for the abutters.
That got me thinking. It's a refrain I've heard consistently since I heard back. One afflicted population or another complains in the paper or in blogs that the rest of the city just doesn't care enough about their particular issue.
So I thought I'd spell it out a little more clearly.
By my measures, the community at large doesn't care about...
Folks living near the landfill.
People on Plum Island
Parents with kids in school.
Senior citizens who want a senior center.
Senior citizens on limited budgets
Our teenagers.
Kid in schools.
Am I missing anyone?
So, by this account, it would appear the community-at-large only truly cares about young to middle-aged adults who have no children and live between the South End, Route 95, and Low Street, in other words folks who don't really require anything from the community-at-large.
That's what makes them so darned lovable.
.
7 comments:
Oh, Tom, this is so cool. Well said!
Tom,
I see some good insights in your post , but are you [a little bit] equating different issues with different trade offs with a lack of civic mindedness on any/all these issues?
Each seems to have different clusters of folks pro and con for different reasons.
Each seems to have different degrees of technical and legal complexity [landfill, barrier island issues], 'best way?' or money saving type questions, [like regional sharing of some city functions or employees joining state insurance]vs. increased levy.
Some people are probably happy to say yes to all the things you list, but trade offs are needed everywhere in life so believing that the group that needs the least is saying no to the groups that need the most because they just don't care may be the wrong conclusion.
Like a family's budget, people say yes to some things, no to others, and maybe later to still others.
Tom, I read a review of a book recently called _The Big Sort: why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart_, by Bill Bishop with Robert G. Cushing, Houghton Mifflin 2008.
The idea is that we self-sort into interest/position groups that allow us not to have to engage with contrary positions.
I see an analogous process at work in local civics. It's best exemplified by the NIMBY phenomenon. You can get hundreds of people out to a public hearing on a particular project (a residential subdivision, say) and hear a raft of commentary on traffic, wildlife, nature, open space, blah blah blah. But where were these people when the larger development issues were being debated in fora such as public meetings for master plans or city zoning?
I may sound cynical but it seems that most people mainly care about issues they perceive to DIRECTLY affect their wallets or quality of life. More abstract issues about the good of the community (such as the landfill or properly funded schools, or senior centers) -- the "common wealth" as the founders put it, are just not part of the average person's imagination or vocabulary.
At least, that has been my personal experience.
The landfill is interesting. As is Plum Island, Plum Island Coffee Roasters and L'Affaire Crabshack.
But what we really want to know is whether Newburyport high school girls are as fun as the ones in Gloucester.
I wasn't there, because I didn't have anything different to say. Would just a higher body count have been important? In most cases, it would not be, because the people in attendance might represent many viewpoints. In this case, I can see it might be, since I think there is only one view of this issue.
Of course, if I had known that I might have had a chance to mingle and maybe even meet the cream of the blogging world, ... :-)
There seems to be a Libertarian Exception to the clustering of America.
Libertarians never fit in. On college campuses, their desire for market discipline makes them seem mean. In family-oriented suburbs, their opposition to the government regulation of "vice" makes them seem dangerous. In urban communities that self-identify as liberal, their willingness to vote Republican makes them beyond the pale.
Thank goodness for the internet.
Good points all around.
Interesting, when I first thought of the post I thought I’d be critical of those affected parties that scream out, “No one cares about us.” Because at some point those same people will be among those who don’t care about someone else’s issue.
Example, how many Plum Islanders are rallying to the defense of the landfill folks, and visa versa.
But the larger point of the post is if we wait to care—or more accurately react—until some offensive project is landing in our own back yard (real or virtual) than we’ve waited too long. In my mind, the only way to get people to care about your problem is to show some concern for theirs.
And I’m not suggesting folks need to spend a dime. After I wrote the post I was told that other residents do care about the people living around the landfill.
From my perspective it’s passive rather than active caring, and in the end active caring is the only caring that count.
Write a letter. Attend a meeting. Comment on a blog. Email or call one of the affected parties. None of this costs anything more than a few minutes of time, but it could have an impact.
My initial fear had been the lack of public outcry would leave the city council with little political cover to reject NV’s proposal. Thankfully, the council voted correctly even without some helpful hue and cry.
BTW, Needham’s you’re on the money. In fact it get worse. When I was on the planning board in my old town angry abutters would accuse us of sneaking measures through past town meetings. Not only do some folks not participate, but they won’t even take responsibility for their own apathy.
Dick, no need to wait for another meeting. Always happy to grab a cup of coffee. :)
Post a Comment