Taking the Next Step – Opportunities to Make a Difference during the Week of June 5

Residential density near
Kew Gardens, London

This is my third week of providing a calendar of opportunities to become more involved in urbanist advocacy.  I’m still fiddling with the content and format, but have received supportive feedback, so will be continuing with the concept.

This is also an interesting week to write about advocacy.  I have examples and am observation to share.

On Wednesday, I attended the Board meeting of Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit, the folks who are returning commuter rail to the North Bay later this year.  The agenda included Board consideration of a fare structure for the train.  I attended with several other members of Friends of SMART, most of whom shared my concern that the fares under consideration by the Board were too high.

I had a number of specific reasons for my fare concerns, starting with the fact that the system is incomplete, missing extensions north and south, the second station in Petaluma, transit-oriented development throughout the system, and parking facilities, bike and car, at many stations.  I feared that the fares initially considered didn’t adequately reflect the unfinished state.

Also, I was concerned by talk among Board members about the need to “recoup” the costs of building the system.  Consumers don’t make spending decisions based on what the product costs to make; they make decisions based on the value they receive versus other choices, such as driving.  Being blind to how consumer decisions are made seemed a risk.

Lastly, I believed that the future success of SMART can’t rest solely on enticing current commuters out of their cars, but instead on nurturing the next generation of commuters to live transit-oriented lives, with fewer household cars and daily reliance on trains and buses.  To foster that generation required a fare that would encourage them to experiment with the new train until it became integrated into their lives.  And until the non-railroad improvements, such as transit-oriented development, were in place.

It was the last point on which I chose to focus in my comments.  Other public speakers chose different perspectives, but all expressed concern about the fares.

As best, we had partial success.  The Board approved a fare structure lower than we had feared, but higher than we had hoped.  However, several of the points that I’d made found their way into the Board discussion, including comments by one director who ended up voting against the adopted fare structure.  I’ve had many less successful advocacy efforts.

On Thursday, I was on the other side of the dais.  As the chair of the Petaluma Transit Advisory Committee, I’d been advised that a number of residents from a Petaluma neighborhood would attend our committee meeting to express displeasure with a proposed bus route.  They didn’t show up.  Instead, several seniors who were thrilled about the bus route provided supportive testimony and engaged in a helpful discussion on how to do effective community outreach with a limited budget and staff.

Both experiences reinforced a long-time observation.  Not every advocacy battle can be won.  But if you keep showing up, undeterred by past failures, you’ll find a moment in time when ground is suddenly gained.  The needle of public opinion on deep-seated cultural standards, such as our land-use forms, doesn’t spin easily, but it will move in fits and spurts if we keep our shoulders to it.

Please make use of this observation, perhaps starting with one of the opportunities below.

Upcoming Meetings

MTC/ABAG, Saturday, June 4, 8:30am, Corte Madera Community Center, 498 Tamalpais Drive, Corte Madera – This is one of a series of meetings seeking input for the Bay Area 2040 plan on transportation funding strategies.  (Reminder: These are the meetings that were largely shut down by Agenda 21 disruptions during the last planning effort in 2012.  I was at the Sonoma County meeting back then and ruminated at length on the disturbances, here, here, and here.  I still agree with much of what I wrote four years ago.)   I’ll attend this meeting and am willing to carpool from Petaluma if anyone wishes.

Petaluma City Council, Monday, June 6, 7:00pm, 11 English Street, Petaluma – Until yesterday afternoon, the agenda included a vote on whether to proceed with a grant application for Petaluma Boulevard South.  The scope of work would have “right-sized” the roadway, likely similar to the changes made several years ago to the downtown segment of Petaluma Boulevard.  The changes would have made the street friendlier to pedestrians and bicyclists.

It would have been a great project, one that Petaluma Urban Chat recently designated as one of the top five urbanist opportunities in Petaluma.

However, the item was removed from the agenda late yesterday, without explanation or a date to which the item would be deferred.

I suggest that proponents of right-sizing of Petaluma Boulevard South attend the Council meeting regardless and express their desire for the improvement during the Public Comment section.  (I’d do myself, but will be away at an urbanist conference.)

Petaluma Urban Chat, Wednesday, June 8, 7:00pm, Aqus Café, 2nd and H Streets, Petaluma –Urban Chat will discuss the Bay Area 2040 plan and the role of regional planning.  One goal will be encouraging folks to attend the Sonoma County outreach meeting on June 13.  Those who attended the June 4 Marin County outreach meeting will report on their impressions.  (Note: I normally facilitate Urban Chat but, in my absence, Bjorn Griepenburg will facilitate.)

MTC/ABAG, Monday, June 13, 6:00pm, Luther Burbank Center for the Arts, 50 Mark West Springs Road, Santa Rosa –This will be the Sonoma County outreach meeting for input to the Bay Area 2040 plan.

Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit Board, Wednesday, June 15, 1:30pm, 5401 Old Redwood Highway, Petaluma – The agenda isn’t yet posted, but it was noted during the last meeting that a further discussion of Clipper, the only source of payment to be accepted on SMART, would be held, including the mechanics of using a Clipper card, the limitations of the current iteration of Clipper, and the possibilities of the coming Clipper 2.0.

Rail~Volution, October 10-12, Hyatt Regency, San Francisco – The leading conference on the use of rail for community building is coming to San Francisco this fall.  I’m tentatively planning on attending.

Other Involvement Opportunities

City of Petaluma – The City is seeking volunteers for openings on City Commissions and Committees.  In many years, some bodies, notably the Planning Commission and Pedestrian/Bicycle Advisory Committee, attract more applicants than openings, but other bodies struggle to maintain full complements.  Citizens willing to take an active role on these commissions and committees can be surprisingly capable of making community changes.  The application deadline is Thursday, June 9, so now is the time to make the commitment.

Lots of opportunities to get involved.  Please grab at least one and hopefully more.

My plan is to write an involvement post every week.  However, I’ll be at the urbanist conference next week, so my next involvement post will follow my return.

The conference will be in Detroit.  My next post will be a personal perspective on the past failures and future hopes of Detroit.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Taking the Next Step – Opportunities for Public Education and Participation, Week of May 29

Urban setting in London

I write about urbanism and enjoy doing so.  I hope I’ve opened some eyes to different ways to configure our North Bay communities, alternatives that will make us more resilient, sustainable, and financially solvent.

However, growing a cadre of enthusiastic, but closeted, urbanists doesn’t change the world.  Instead, those converts must take part in the decision-making processes.  Voting wisely in November is a good start, but attending meetings with urbanist angles and looking for the right moments to put a shoulder to the wheel is also important.

Thus, I present a weekly summary of meetings that urbanists, newly-minted or long-standing, might consider attending and at which they can look for the right time to add their thoughts.  I also note a few other opportunities for public involvement.

Upcoming Meetings

Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit, Wednesday, June 1, 1:30pm, 5401 Old Redwood Highway, Petaluma – The SMART Board is scheduled to meet, although the agenda isn’t yet posted.  (Update: The agenda has now been posted and will include the discussion of fares, a subject noted below under Other Involvement Opportunities.)

Sonoma County Transportation and Land-Use Coalition, Wednesday, June 1, 4:00pm, Environmental Center of Sonoma County, 55 Ridgway Avenue # A, Santa Rosa – SCTLC has been a long-time leader in forward thinking about more sustainable land-use options, including early advocacy for SMART.  Their next meeting will consider the next generation of land-use changes, including a discussion of rail options beyond SMART.

MTC/ABAG, Thursday, June 2, 11:00am, Finley Community Center, 2060 W. College Avenue, Santa Rosa – The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments are kicking off their Bay Area 2040 plan to identify the best strategies for efficient investment of transportation resources.  This will be the scoping meeting to elicit public input on the environment impact study to be prepared for Bay Area 2040.  (Note: This meeting is strictly on the EIR and is different than the outreach meetings that will seek input to Bay Area 2040 and are noted below.)

Petaluma Transit Advisory Committee, Thursday, June 2, 4:00pm, Petaluma City Hall – MTC has delayed the due date for the Short Range Transit Plan, allowing more time for North Bay transit agencies to consider their interconnections with the coming SMART train, but the Transit Committee will still have SRTP decisions to ponder, including possible adjustments to evening service.  (Acknowledgment: I serve as chair of the committee.) 

MTC/ABAG, Saturday, June 4, 8:30am, Corte Madera Community Center, 498 Tamalpais Drive, Corte Madera – This is one of a series of meeting at which input will be sought for the Bay Area 2040 plan on transportation funding strategies.  (Reminder: These are the meetings that were largely shut down by Agenda 21 disruptions during the last planning effort in 2012.  I was at the Sonoma County meeting back then and ruminated at length on the disturbances, here , here, and here.  I still agree with much of what I wrote four years ago.)

Petaluma Urban Chat , Wednesday, June 8, 7:00pm, Aqus Café, 2nd and H Streets, Petaluma –Urban Chat will discuss the Bay Area 2040 with the goal of enticing folks to attend the Sonoma County outreach meeting on June 13.  Those who attended the June 4 Marin County meeting will report on their impressions.  (Note: I normally facilitate Urban Chat, but will be away at an urbanist conference.  Bjorn Griepenburg will facilitate in my absence.)

MTC/ABAG, Monday, June 13, 6:00pm, Luther Burbank Center for the Arts, 50 Mark West Springs Road, Santa Rosa –This will be the Sonoma County outreach meeting for input to Bay Area 2040.

Other Involvement Opportunities

City of Petaluma – The City is seeking volunteers for openings on City Commissions and Committees.  In many years, some bodies, notably the Planning Commission and Pedestrian/Bicycle Advisory Committee, attract more applicants than openings, but other bodies struggle to maintain full complements.  Citizens willing to take an active role on these commissions and committees can be surprisingly capable of making community changes.

California Road Charge – Although the deadline is only days away, volunteers are still being sought to help conduct a pilot study on the use of vehicle mileage charges to replace the gas tax.  Although 7,400 volunteers have already signed up for 5,000 spaces in the study, the organizers are still trying to fill demographic groups they believe are underrepresented.  (I’ve previously signed up.)

SMART – The SMART Board is still seeking your thoughts on a fare structure.  Since I first mentioned this poll a week ago, questioning its over-simplicity, the North Bay has largely agreed with me and gone much further.

A Petaluma architect wrote a pointed email to SMART management asking about connections between fares and whether employees would get living wages, whether the extension to Larkspur would be completed sooner, and whether the second Petaluma station would be build sooner.  To my knowledge, he didn’t get a response.

Perhaps even more importantly, many in the North Bay are greatly concerned by the fares, with the fear that ridership will be depressed if the fares don’t offer a sufficient incentive to overcome the advantages given to cars in our car-centric land-pattern.

I find the point reasonable.  My thought is that fares need to be set such that ridership approximates the initial estimates.  If we’re going to spend the money to build a game-changing rail system, we need to ensure that enough people ride for the game to be truly changed.

Meanwhile, folks interested in the role of SMART in the North Bay may want to mark June 15 on their calendars.  It seems likely that the SMART Board will continue their consideration of fares at that meeting.  (Update: The discussion will instead be on the June 1 agenda.)

Lots of opportunities to get involved.  Please grab at least one and hopefully more.

With the full-scale testing of the SMART train likely coming in June, my next post will offer some perspective on the immediate impacts to the communities to be served by the train.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

A Week of Public Involvement and Urbanist Advocacy

Walkable urban setting in Sonoma

This is a post about which I’ve often thought but never executed.  I feared it might seem selfish or self-aggrandizing.  But having recently participated in an extended discussion on the effort needed effect change in land use policies, I decided to share what a week in my life can entail.  It can be an example of what public involvement and advocacy requires.  The topic also builds upon my last two posts (here and here) about public involvement.

I should begin with a disclaimer.  Doing what I describe below doesn’t make me a great guy.  Most days, I enjoy the involvement, so what I do is largely a labor of love.  Also, I happen to be at a time in my life when I can devote the hours.  But I’m not in the league of teachers who spend unpaid weekends grading papers or of parents who juggle work obligations to be home for dinner and homework checks.   They’re the heroes.

With that understood, here is a recent week in my civic life.  Perhaps a little busier than most, but not greatly so.  To avoid complicated and tangential explanations, I’ve simplified a few details.

Monday Morning: The week began early.  A project was the agenda for City Council approval that evening.  At the last minute, the developer was asking for relief from a requirement to build a bike path.  Several people contacted me, asking that I attend the City Council meeting to argue against the request.  I agreed to attend, but without speaking on the bike path issue.  I’ll explain why a little later.

Monday Early Evening: To prepare for the City Council meeting, I had dinner with the Chair of the Pedestrian Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) to talk strategy and philosophy.  As the appointed liaison from the Park and Recreation Commission, I’m also a PBAC member, so we’ve often chatted.  Plus she’s a fun person.

In addition to the pending Council decision, we conversed on many points, including coordination between PBAC and the Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) which I chair.  (For those counting, yes, those are three city commissions and committees on which I sit.)

Monday Evening: The PBAC Chair and I arrived early for the City Council meeting.  Although on a different matter, I needed to talk quietly with the developer who had the bike path issue.  I had to resolve a point of miscommunication that had arisen at an earlier meeting.  And I wanted to talk about a pedestrian connectivity issue that hadn’t been addressed because of the miscommunication.

I pulled the developer aside for a private chat.  He saw the value in the pedestrian feature, but asked for more time to discuss it with partners.  (I’ve continued coordination with him and remain hopeful that the amenity will be implemented.)

In the Council meeting, I still chose not to speak, fearing that participating in the bike path discussion after asking privately for the pedestrian feature would undermine my request.  But I offered suggestions to the people who spoke in favor of retaining the bike path.

The bike path requirement was removed by a vote of 4-3.  The bike proponents left unhappy.  But I’d expected the vote to be 5-2 so saw a small ray of hope in the defeat.

Wednesday Afternoon:  SMART is a North Bay commuter rail line that will soon begin service.  I hadn’t planned on attending the SMART Board meeting, but was advised in the late morning that the Board might be prepared to jettison the second Petaluma station from their near-term planning.

I’ve written often about the alternative locations for the second station, arguing in favor of Corona over its competitor.  I also testified before the City Council the evening when they put their weight behind Corona.  With the decision arrow beginning to point toward Corona, it seemed the wrong time for the SMART Board to opt out.

Luckily, the rumor was wrong.  But I was nonetheless pleased to be at the meeting for a couple of agenda items.

First, the Board voted to officially move ahead with a third station in Novato.  Years earlier, Novato hadn’t seen the value of a downtown station, so had asked SMART to locate the two Novato stations in drivable locations away from downtown.  But the community gradually saw the light and asked about adding a downtown station.  SMART agreed to facilitate as long as Novato covered the cost, which the City Council accepted.  I was happy to be present when this walkable urban amenity was officially blessed.

Also, SMART handed out a draft train schedule.  Although everyone knew that a schedule would soon be forthcoming, it was still a symbolic moment to have an actual schedule in hand.  The trains suddenly felt more real.  And I was pleased to see enough time between the Cotati station and the downtown Petaluma station to accommodate the Corona station.  (A SMART official denied my suggestion that scheduling flexibility had been intentionally left for Corona.  I didn’t believe him.)

Wednesday Evening: The monthly meeting of PBAC was also dedicated to the SMART system.  SMART representatives spoke about the alignment and funding for the bike/ped paths near the rail alignment, on which PBAC had earlier successfully encouraged changes, and about bike parking at the downtown station, with which PBAC was actively involved.

But my most interesting moment came late in the meeting.  The City Engineer reported that construction plans had been submitted for a project that PBAC had previously reviewed.  It was a project on which, aware of the concerns of the neighbors over traffic speeds and safe biking, I’d lobbied the Planning Commission for narrower driving lanes.  In addition to leaving more room for bike lanes, narrower lanes induce lower driving speeds.

I was only partly successful in my lobbying.  The draft approval called for 12-foot travel lanes.  After my efforts, the adopted approval called for the lane widths to be as established by the City Engineer during design.  So I now eagerly asked the City Engineer about the lane widths on the plans, hoping for 11 feet or even 10-1/2 feet.

They were still at 12 feet.

Although there was little opportunity for further discussion, I expressed my exasperation at having so meekly surrendered a hill that had been so hard-won.

To his credit, the City Engineer noted my frustration and emailed me later that evening, suggesting a meeting to discuss further.  (The meeting took place a week later.  We had an open and productive conversation about the benefits of narrower lanes and the geometric challenges of narrowing the travel lanes.  We ended the meeting with the City Engineer recommitted to seeking a narrower lane solution.  Some hills must be won several times.)

Thursday Afternoon: The monthly meeting of the Transit Advisory Committee was devoted to reviewing the Short-Range Transit Plan, a state requirement for all transit agencies.  A key element of the Petaluma Transit SRTP was revisions to bus routes to better connect with SMART.  And a key topic of conversation was a scheduling challenge that had been created by the draft SMART schedule.  Finding the best scheduling fit between SMART and Petaluma Transit will be on-going task, on which the TAC and Transit staff will continue to coordinate.

Thursday Evening: Parklets, the reversible conversion of street parking into public gathering places, were invented in San Francisco about a decade ago and have now spread nationwide, including adopted policies in the North Bay cities of Sebastopol and Ukiah.  But Petaluma has neither a policy nor the staff time to develop one.

I had organized a working group, headed by a young planner with deep Petaluma roots, to remedy the gap.  To finish my Thursday, we had our regular meeting to discuss the outline that would be shared with City staff at an upcoming meeting.

Friday: On Friday, I rested, except for finishing my third urbanist blog post of the week and responding to a jammed inbox of emails.

I’m sure many are shaking their heads, complaining that the process shouldn’t take this much effort and that most people don’t have time for this much community involvement.  On the first point, I’ll disagree.  Given the complications of existing improvements, community preferences, CEQA, financing standards, consumer behavior, and much more, it’s understandable the process doesn’t pivot well.

Indeed, I’m pleased that the process doesn’t pivot too easily.  If it did, our forefathers would have razed most of the best North Bay downtowns in the 1960s and replaced the historic buildings with parking lots.  So we were lucky on that point.

On the reality that many folks don’t have as much time as me to be involved, I agree fully.   I have the inclination and flexibility to do what I now do, but can’t expect others to follow my lead.  But I do believe that folks who want our towns to look and function differently must to find enough time to participate in the process a little bit.  Perhaps a monthly conversation group on land planning plus a public meeting or two.  Too many important decisions are made in public sessions with no members of the public present.

On that segue, my next post will be about Petaluma Urban Chat, a monthly gathering to discuss walkable urbanism.  After recently out-placing its care and feeding to someone else, it seems to have come back to me.  I’m disappointed, but have also gained a new hope about what Urban Chat might be.  I’ll write more next time, while also looking for new adoptive parent.  My schedule can use the relief.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Finding the Elusive Public Input Sweet Spot

Walkable urban setting in Napa

In my last post, I wrote that public input can sometimes go awry, with concerns about flawed ideas triggering rules that consume both good and bad ideas.

The examples I cited were from my personal history with small-scale hydroelectric projects.  In that field, logically dubious demands for “cumulative impact” studies, raised by those who had legitimate concerns about projects proposed in inappropriate locations but lacked a bigger perspective, bogged down the review process such that few power projects, even the good ones that could have slowed climate change, moved ahead.

I then expressed a concern that something similar could happen to walkable urbanism if a long list of projects, undifferentiated as to their impacts on traffic, water usage, or other local hot buttons, triggered a public demand to slow all development.

A new reader to this blog might interpret my concern as a preference for little or no public input.

That interpretation would be wrong.

Long-time readers know that I encourage public input.  Indeed, a primary thrust of this blog is trying to motivate people to participate in the land-use process, hopefully in support of walkable urban development. 

But that motivation can be difficult to incite because effective public participation isn’t easy.  Instead, it often stumbles on three hurdles, education, persistence, and opportunity.  I’ll expand on the three.

Education: I’ve long been intrigued how the general public decides the range of topics on which they can make useful comments.  As a civil engineer, I’ve described the phenomenon as “Everyone has an opinion on roundabouts, but no one ever comments on sewer sizing.”

From an engineering perspective, the design difficulties of the two are roughly similar.  A young engineer with moderate competence and a few years of experience can do a reasonable job with either.  But the public feels that they can make helpful input on roundabouts, while staying away from sewer design.

I understand why there’s a difference.  As drivers, the public thinks they understand roadways, but prefers not to think about sewers.  (In a recent public meeting, I made a mild jest about sewer flows.  The City Councilmember sitting next to me commented acidly, “Thanks for putting that image in our heads.”)

But the fact that the general public thinks it understands driving doesn’t make it so.  A good example, although far from the only one, is induced traffic, the theory that there is latent traffic demand awaiting reduced congestion before coming forth.  The theory explains why new roads, even in communities that are demographically and economically stable, quickly fill and become as congested as older roads

This theory has been understood and applied in Europe for decades, but is only now gaining traction in the U.S., in large part because many didn’t find it intuitive.

(Of course, engineering isn’t the only field of endeavor in which the willingness of the public to offer opinions doesn’t map well with their knowledge.  Lots of folks have opinions on vaccines, but no one weighs in on transplant rejection drugs, although both deal with the immune system.  I’ll leave it as a party game for readers to come up with examples in other fields.)

When it comes to public input, an under-informed public can still be effective, but may end up being effective on the wrong points, helping to effect “solutions”, such as cumulative impact studies, that ultimately work contrary to the public good.

To make the world better through public advocacy, one must not only be willing to make one’s voice heard, but to also make sure that one is saying something that advances the common good.

By saying this, I’m not setting myself forth as the fount of urbanist knowledge.  Far from it.  Instead, I find myself learning something new every day, often challenging or modifying earlier beliefs.  This blog isn’t a source of ultimate knowledge.  It’s a cooperative effort between readers and me to continue working toward better and more complete knowledge of land use that can be used for public involvement.

Persistence: No matter how ill-conceived, there’s one advantage to making a ruckus on a single point such as cumulative impact studies.  Because it doesn’t require interaction with the current processes, one can choose any time to make the argument.  If enough supporters can be secured, new rules can be implemented relatively quickly and the proponents can soon move onto other challenges, usually without a look back at the carnage left behind.

But working within the system, choosing to support “good” projects and to oppose “bad” ones, requires a different timescale.  It requires constant attention to the process and careful scheming about the right moment to put a drop of oil in the right place to change the outcome.  It requires persistence.

In my time of actively promoting urbanism, I’ve worked with a lot of people who bought into urbanism and vowed to make a difference.   Then they realized the glacial pace at which true change, not superficial disruption but true change, is effected and soon wandered away.

I don’t necessarily blame them.  It is hard to sit through weeks and months of city council, planning commission, and advisory committee meetings, waiting for the exact moment to make the right pitch.  But it’s how good projects, those tailored to best serve the public good, get moved along.    

Opportunity: Over time, I’ve had the chance to chat with many North Bay municipal officials about the land-use process and public input.  Although far from unanimous, one response that arises occasionally and concerns me greatly is unease with public input and a preference to defer it to the end, after city staff has had months or years to polish the project, leaving only a few intractable issues for public decision.

The problem with that approach is that many good ideas may have been left on the cutting room floor before the public ever has a chance to touch the project.

Perhaps an 80-unit apartment project has been trimmed to 40 units to reduce massing, although pedestrian vitality would have been served by the greater number.

Perhaps the parking count has been bumped to avoid parking management issues, although the public would have preferred to encourage non-auto travel.

Perhaps an opportunity to provide a convenient connection to a bus stop has been lost.

If the public is excluded from the process until the final approvals, we’ll almost certainly get development that looks much like what we’ve always gotten.  And in a world where climate change and municipal fiscal collapse are hanging on the horizon, continuing the status quo shouldn’t be our aim.

So, earlier and more significant public input should be the goal.  But of course, that participation in the early stages of a project should be calm, temperate, and cognizant of the political and financial realities of development.  The goal should be cooperative problem-solving, not the bashing of developers or city staff.

So there’s my philosophy.  I believe greatly in public input.  Indeed, I consider that opportunities for public input are essential to healthy cities.  But that input must come with education and persistence.  And my fear is that video that triggered the rumination in this post and the preceding one, although not the intention of the videographer, didn’t promote opportunity, education, or persistence.

My next two posts have long been planned to touch on a recent week of community involvement and on a restart for Petaluma Urban Chat.  However, I now see that each topic has become a logical continuation of the threads above.  So the topics will remain as planned, but will be woven into a bigger tapestry.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Oyez, Oyez, Is Anyone Listening?

A typical downtown setting

Changing the world, whether moving with more alacrity toward walkable urbanism or some other beneficial change, comes in two steps.  The first is getting the public to listen to the logic for the new way of thinking until they agree with it.  The second is alerting them to the moments in time, the tipping points, when they can advocate and make a difference.

The two steps have a common element.  Getting the attention of the public.  And that’s a far from trivial task.  Indeed, it may be one of the most difficult tasks in 21st century public involvement.

In common with most who’ve have a role in public involvement, I have many, many stories on the subject.  I’ll share three today.

(1)  I was the member of a development team for a mixed-use development near a historic single-family neighborhood.  The mixed-use proposal was consistent with the wishes of the city, but the developer feared that the neighborhood could raise enough objections to make the city skittish.

To forestall the risk, the developer, soon after the project was conceived, prepared a flyer about his plans and walked the neighborhood, knocking on every door for blocks around.  When someone answered, he introduced himself and his project, and then asked about concerns.  When no one answered, he left a flyer with a personal note.

Many were also invited to a public meeting where the developer provided free food and a further chance to talk about his project.

Two years later, after the project had gone through several changes as a result of the city entitlement process, the developer again walked the neighborhood, knocking on every door and leaving flyers behind.

When the project was finally cleared for a public hearing in another couple of years, everyone within 500 feet was officially notified and the developer hosted an open house to answer any final questions before the formal hearing.

So what happened the night of the hearing, nearly five years after the development process has begun?  Several people, who lived behind the doors on which the developer had knocked, complained that the developer was trying to rush the project to approval without involving the neighborhood, that the city was abetting his effort to exclude public involvement, and that the hearing should be deferred until the developer had engaged in meaningful outreach.

(2) More recently, I watched a developer solicit comments on a conceptual plan by scheduling a public viewing, with meeting announcements running in the local paper for four weeks before the meeting.

A week after the meeting, I bumped into someone who hadn’t been there and who was contemptuous toward the developer for only publishing a single notice on the day of the meeting.  When I pointed out the notices had run for four weeks, my acquaintance dismissed the extra notices with “Well, I didn’t see them.  The developer should have tried harder.”

(3) Also recently, Petaluma Transit developed a plan to modify bus routes to better connect with the coming SMART train.  As a member of the Transit Advisory Committee, I was pleased by the effort and the concepts, so made an effort to bring people to the meeting where the proposed reroutings would be introduced.  I wrote a post on the subject, announced the meeting on Facebook, Twitter, and Nextdoor.com, and corralled a number of acquaintances on street corners to alert them to the meeting.  Also, the agenda was on the City website and announced by City email.

How many folks attended the meeting as a result of the outreach work?  Zero.  However, when someone who could benefit from the new routes learned of the meeting a week or so afterwards, I was told that I hadn’t done enough to notify the public.

 With one exception, I’m sympathetic to the concerns expressed in these three stories.  In the 21st century, we’re deluged by facts and it can be difficult to extract the information that’s truly important, a fact that should concern us.

(The one exception is the willingness of the people in the above anecdotes to blame others for their lack of awareness.  When I forget about a meeting I had planned to attend, and it happens more often than I’d like, I put the blame on myself and think about ways to modify how I process the information that crosses my desk.  I’m disappointed when others look for scapegoats.  But I’ll also admit to the possibility of a selection bias, with the stories of those who unreasonably look to blame others sticking more firmly in my memory.)

While pondering this question of public notices, I came across a story out of Burlingame about a man who has taken it upon himself to become the town crier, securing certification from the association of town criers, and, with the backing of the local historical society, walking the streets of Burlingame giving local updates in booming, 125-word Old English scripts.

Although City Hall seemed nonplussed by his initiative, I think Richard Aptekar might be onto something.  I suspect that information imparted in Old English by a gentleman in a 19th century cutaway coat and with a gold medallion around his neck is more likely to stick in our memory than a Facebook post which we can scan past in moments.

I’m not suggesting that a town crier wandering North Bay downtowns would ever be anything more than a curiosity.  But perhaps we can build off that concept to find an alternative that would be better attuned to our currently sprawling cities.  I won’t claim that what I offer below is a fully-formed idea, but it’s a start.  Others are welcome to offer improvements or alternatives.

Imagine a truck with a state-of the-art speaker system cruising the downtown, shopping districts, and neighborhoods on Saturdays and Sundays, stopping at designated times and places to announce the five most important community facts that everyone should know about the upcoming week.  The announcements could be city council meetings, classes, public festivals, pre-election forums, or even pivotal high school sporting events.

Obviously, there are a number of logistical issues behind this vision.  For one, the announcements are likely barred by most municipal codes so the endeavor would need to be sanctified by the city council.

Also, there would be a question of who selects the announcements.  Again, I think the city council must be the body to establish rules, probably in the same resolution by which they allow the roaming truck.

Perhaps the council can call for a vetting committee of seven people, three appointed by the council, one by the Chamber of Commerce, another by the local service clubs, the sixth by the downtown merchants, and the seventh by the first six appointees.

However, I see a problem here.  This has the potential to be an old white guys club, and even I as an old white guy don’t want that.  Perhaps the local high schools or youth organization could have a seat, but that still doesn’t capture the 20 to 40 year olds who I’d consider crucial.  Perhaps the council appointments could have age restrictions.  I’m sure that solutions can be found.

The committee, once configured, would solicit weekly suggestions from the community for thirty-word announcements to be included in the weekend circuit.  The committee would then meet every Friday over breakfast to select the top five.  I’m sure that a fascinating culture of horse-trading would evolve from the weekly meetings but, as long as the committee is correctly configured, the results should represent the community.

Would the concept work?  Perhaps I’m not typical, but if I knew that community announcements were to be made at a corner near my home on a Saturday morning, I’d wander down with beverage in hand to listen and to chat with neighbors.

What about folks who are away for the weekend?  There should be emails that would repeat the information in the announcements, but those emails shouldn’t be sent until Sunday evening.  If you want timely information about which to plan your week, you need to be a listener, not a reader.

I expect this idea, as described here, is imperfect.  But I think it’s a step in the right direction.

Others are welcome to add their thoughts.

When we talk of walkable urbanism reducing car usage, we usually think of being able to leave cars in garages while we undertake some tasks.  But the bigger goal is allowing at least some folks to live without cars or garages, instead fully living their lives, including travel, on foot, bicycle, and transit.  A friend recently told me a story that fits into the travel part of that discussion.  I’ll tell more when I next write.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)