Everybody wants to be the last person to move to Westwood. That’s how one resident summed up a controversy over plans to build a horse stable and operate an “elite dressage barn.”
I’ve put myself in the midst of controversy by blogging about it at WestwoodBlog. And I believe I am learning some principles that our town and other towns could use to better manage these situations in the future. I am not a Public Relations professional, but I believe the root of all this conflict is fundamentally grounded in the relationship and communications between town, developer, and residents.
Problems
1. The formal process is inadequate.
It’s not enough to follow “the rules.” A review of the documents, meeting minutes, etc. on the town website reveals there has been no shortage of procedure. But there is always some person who remains unsatisfied and many issues that must be re-argued over and over again.
2. Communication never ends.
When I spoke with people connected to this process, I quickly felt their frustration over a matter that, to them, had been going for months. I was amazed that anyone would care so much about this issue–to hire attorneys and plan on filing a lawsuit to prevent a neighbor from putting horses on their 16-acre farm. But it fit the pattern of discontent in this town that to me is more about a lack of trust than a lack of information.
3. Local politics cannot be strategized.
Residents who oppose change have a huge advantage when the town, developer, or business owner commits to a public plan. It’s like having Patriot’s coach Bill Belichik hand over the playbook to the Jets before the game. We ask for openness and transparency, but then, when it is provided, opponents use this information to selectively counter everything.
Solutions
We need a conversation, not a sales pitch. We need to recognize that the process is dynamic and evolving. We need a system that can tolerate uncertainty, ensure voices of objection are heard, but work towards a definitive compromise resolution.
I believe in this case a blog can help. I provided a sort of “brokered anonymnity” to the parties involved–doing research on my own to find facts and then posting those facts into the stream of opinionated discussion. It’s not going to resolve this issue. But I hope it is a start.
I believe there can be an economic development role around communication. There is a facilitative component–to ensure that dialog happens in a public enough space that serious objections are raised early and frivolous objections can be publically answered. For example, in the case of the horse stables, I was under the impression that the farm would be using public land to operate their business. “What’s next, a snowmobile rental shop in the winter?” I thought. But that’s not what it was about at all. I also had concerns about how the trails would be affected, my dog and kids, etc. It turns out these issues have been raised and there are specific ways they can be handled as well.
But it is asking a lot for a business owner to engage in a one on one conversation with every person in town who wants to get involved. That’s where social media could play a valuable role.
The blog can collect opinions and fact is a less structured way than the local newspaper and a less formal way than the town website. When the newspaper reports on this issue, town officials get small quotes if they are available. The story is presented and cast a certain way, then the business owner is left to deal with the fallout.
I ask people to go to the blog, but I run into a number of objections and problems:
- Residents do not want to state their names because they fear public ridicule and meanness from people with opposing views.
- Officials do not want to be characterized as speaking for the whole town or on behalf their board or commission.
We need a more comprehensive communication engagement. For example, our selectmen and members of boards and commissions could write short updates on a regular basis about what matters were being considered. These kinds of updates would not be long summary documents, but just status updates like: “Tonight, we heard about the horse stables to be built on Sandy Valley Road. A number of residents are concerned about traffic, waste, and the impact on the Lowell Woods.” If other people in town were following that person on Facebook, Twitter, or through an official town blog, they might be inclined to ask questions early–before the threat of lawsuits was looming and public officials were advised to stop talking.
I don’t have the answers here, but I am hoping to generate some commentary from other bloggers, social media advocates, and PR people about their experiences. There is a great deal of frustration in these development challenges…and the town has limited resources to invest in a big plan or strategy. But it seems to me there is a solution here–or an approach at least–that would be valuable to learn and teach to municipalities seeking to better serve their residents.
{ 2 comments }
Hey Dave,
I used to do community relations for a PR firm in Southern California. Whether you’re for or against a project, you need to get at the grassroots level and mobilize support for your cause. That means meeting with neighborhood groups (or getting an ally that lives in a neighborhood to start one), organizing coffees, petition drives, email campaigns and other means to let the people making the decision know there is an organized, vocal and active group of residents either supporting or opposing the measure. Also get to the local paper and even the zone in the Globe dedicated to your area and generate some stories.
You say in your blog the community needs a discussion, not a sales pitch. Unfortunately, just like negative advertising in elections, whoever has the best sales pitch, and the most vocal and organized support, usually prevails. As Tip O’Neill said, ‘All politics is local.’ You and your fellow residents are involved in a political issue, which can and often does get ugly. I suppose that’s the price of living in a democracy and standing up for what you believe in.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
It’s sublime–and true–to assert “Local politics can’t be strategized”. I get a laugh everytime I stumble upon a muni website proudly waving about its “mission” or “vision” statement. That’s not democracy because it’s backgrounding opposition and sidelining debate. The only vision democracy can muster is tolerance for difference of opinion (i.e. competing visions).
I get sucked into these wrangles between developers, residents and town officials routinely. If one believes your refutation of local political strategy, then one must accept, almost in a syllogistic way, the disunity, and with that, the inevitable wrangles. It’s systemic.
And for the very reason you’ve been innocently drawn into the fray, that’s why public servants enshrine “anonymity”, at least in senior levels of government. Otherwise, public administrators get lynched at every public/political opportunity. But anonymity also flies in the face of social media tenets of dialogue and transparency.
I’ve come to accept the inescapable reality of getting beat up once in awhile…for being NEUTRAL.
What I like about this post, however, is its indefatiguable faith, that social media holds some hope for a better way.
I subscribe to that hope. And now I subscribe to your blog. How’s that?
bob
Comments on this entry are closed.