EDITORIAL

A lesson from Sand Pond

Posted 5/2/19

In the ongoing battle regarding the proposed storage facility that looks to be built near Sand Pond, we can't help but to be simultaneously impressed by the tenacity of the residents while also somewhat disappointed that such dedicated levels of civic

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
EDITORIAL

A lesson from Sand Pond

Posted

In the ongoing battle regarding the proposed storage facility that looks to be built near Sand Pond, we can’t help but to be simultaneously impressed by the tenacity of the residents while also somewhat disappointed that such dedicated levels of civic involvement is a distinct rarity across the state and country.

It’s no secret that apathy regarding our local governments is high. Attendance of public meetings, even consequential ones, is paltry. A majority of seats on our local city council went unchallenged this last election cycle, as was the case for many municipalities in the state to decide who would sit on their highest legislative body.

Involvement in the lower tiers of government, like our boards and committees – which also make incredibly important decisions regarding the lives of residents – is not exactly thriving either. Oftentimes the only qualified person to express interest in a position will get it, because there’s not a particularly long line of applicants in front of them.

Unfortunately, as the Sand Pond saga has proven, one of the only times people will rally for a cause and sit through endless hours of testimony just to put in their two cents and advocate for something is when it directly affects them – or at least they perceive it to affect them.

And therein lies the real problem when civic activity atrophies – because important decisions are made far more often than people realize, even if it’s not as visible as a storage garage unit being built on the edge of a pond you have fond childhood memories of.

We can’t help but wonder how differently things would be if every public decision was subject to the sheer amount of intrigue, questioning and back-and-forth analysis as this one single storage unit facility has been subject to. What if we demanded the same accountability from our elected officials that we do from developers that want to build in our back yards? What if we had the will to dedicate hours of our time for things that may not directly influence us personally, but indirectly affect us all?

The storage facility might be erected despite the clear protest of the people that don’t want it. But even if that is the case, it’s still important that they cared enough to show up to those meetings and voice their concerns. Even if they don’t emerge victorious, the public can rest assured that the developer was held accountable to the letter of city law. If that law is deemed to be inefficient, then the same concerned citizens can seek to change it. This is how representative democracy should work.

We think the classic expression of “NIMBY-ism” (Not In My Back Yard) – which represents the kinds of people who only show up to protest potential changes when they’re directly impacted – should be reinvented as “NIMBI-ism” (Not In My Best Interest), as it would be less self-centered and more focused on whether or not a proposed building or change to local was actually helping or hurting those that would be affected by it.

As for Sand Pond, the city’s process and the people who have dedicated their time to carrying that process out will ultimately decide its success or failure – but we can learn a lasting lesson regardless of the outcome.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here