[Summit] Resolving the many issues related to trees/the Fountain project

Thu Jul 15 00:59:26 UTC 2010

Andrew wrote:

"Whereas an individual can reach out to a government official, we all know
that in order for things to get done, a concensus at the neighborhood level
needs to be formed. This concensus would then be advocated by the
neighborhood association."

This is the part with which I deeply disagree.  I certainly do *not* know
that a neighborhood-level consensus needs to be formed for things to get
done.

First, it seems clear to me from all the previous posts that no
neighborhood-level consensus *can* be reached on this particular issue.
Some care deeply about saving trees, but much less about having a working
fountain.  Others, including me, see a working fountain as almost the
highest possible priority for the park, and would be prepared to sacrifice
many dozen Norway maples if that is what it takes -- whether politically or
just from an engineering standpoint -- to get the fountain.  We're never
going to come up with a consensus here, only an awkward and unsatisfying
political compromise at best.

And second, this is Providence.  This is Rhode Island.  In point of fact,
things actually *do* get done when individuals reach out to government
officials and establish good relations with them.  When they *seem* to get
done as a result of advocacy by a neighborhood group or organization, as a
rule it is only because some individual in that group has established good
relations with several government officials, and everyone finds it
convenient to allow people to think that the group or organization has
gotten it done.

If, perhaps, Andrew meant to write that things *should* happen in the way he
described . . .  well, all I can say it that "should" doesn't cut much
mustard here or anywhere.  If we all waited for "should" to become "is,"
very little would ever get done.

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Greg Gerritt <gerritt at mindspring.com>wrote:

>  Anna’s response is what mine would have been if she had not done it so
> well.  Greg gerritt
>
>
>
> on 7/14/10 8:12 PM, anna highsmith at anna at occupant.org wrote:
>
> I do agree that communication to the larger community could have been
> handled better, but I also want to remind everyone that we're talking about
> a process run by dedicated volunteers and well-meaning public servants, all
> of whom were doing the best they could to improve our neighborhood with
> limited funds, time, and people power. I think most of the community uproar
> happened when it did because it's a whole lot easier to get people involved
> after they've seen trees get cut down.
>
> Fliers and meetings and emails and petitions are never going to be as
> powerful as someone with a chainsaw shouting, "Timberrrr!"
>
> It could have been better organized and better handled, but the people in
> charge were flexible, attentive to public opinion, and willing to change
> horses mid-stream.
>
> I think as a neighborhood and a city we handled this about as well as could
> reasonably be expected. This is a loosely organized group of neighbors
> operating within a messy, inefficient democracy! Until we get the benevolent
> dictatorship I hear is the most efficient form of government, we're stuck
> with each other. And based on results, we're not doing too badly: new
> fountain, new landscaping, public decision making, flexible leadership. Well
> done, all.
>
> Anna
> Colonial Road
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Andrew Keating <writerkeating at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> *From:* "writerkeating at yahoo.com" <writerkeating at yahoo.com>
> *To:* Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net>
> *Sent:* Wed, July 14, 2010 6:30:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Summit] Resolving the many issues related to trees/the
> Fountain project
>
> Never said I could do better. And hardly arrogant on my part. Facts are
> simple. 95% of response to the plans by the Parks Department were done after
> the plans were already in the implementation stages. Whereas an individual
> can reach out to a government official, we all know that in order for things
> to get done, a concensus at the neighborhood level needs to be formed. This
> concensus would then be advocated by the neighborhood association. My
> questions/concerns are solely with which stage of the planning and
> implementation was the concensus reached? Or was it ever? If not, or at
> least not befor implementation, then what exactly was being advocated by our
> neighborhood association?
>
> The neighborhood association is designed to serve the group, not an
> individual. I may express my views and opinions as different from my
> neighbors. And if that is the case, sure, I will write my local congressman.
> But most of the concerns I have seem to be a little more widespread than
> within my own mind.
>
> So please don't think me arrogant so much as a willing participant in the
> discussion. Or would you rather me and the rest of the people who disagree
> with any particular stance simple step aside and keep our mouths shut?
>
> A.
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Kim Clark
> To: Andrew Keating
> Cc: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> Subject: Re: [Summit] Resolving the many issues related to trees/the
> Fountain project
> Sent: Jul 14, 2010 6:01 PM
>
> citizen gets idea... forms group to see idea achieved... contacts
> local government... idea is approved...
>
> END OF STORY.
>
> 100% agreement on any topic is impossible.
>
> anyone else have an idea? have a problem? contact your representative
> and seek action.
>
> don't like your neighborhood association? don't pay dues. think you
> could do better? then do it.
>
> enough with arrogant criticism from people so sure they could do
> better. easier said than done.
>
> ktc
>
>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>
> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>
> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>
> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20100714/aa32dd36/attachment.htm>