So much for a Vision Plan that isn't supposed consider limitations
In the Vision 2020 Planning Process, each of the committees were instructed to "Dream Big" and not let any limitation interfere with any vision a citizen may have for Midland. Well, it seems there is one limitation a number of Committee's decided to acknowledge, and for those of us in the Community who are concerned with conserving "the green", that was O.K. to ignore, but apparently not "the blue."
Water, and water issues, were the overwhelming items mentioned in the various Vision 2020 draft action plans published in past Sunday's paper. Water, and its supply was mentioned time and time again as a resource to be conserved and used wisely.
Too bad you can't replace Water with Taxpayer Money in my previous paragraph, then we would really be getting somewhere:
Tax payer money and taxing issues, were the overwhelming items mentioned in the various Vision 2020 draft action plans published in past Sunday's paper. Taxpayer money, and its supply was mentioned time and time again as a resource to be conserved and used wisely.
If projects which might be considered "water wasting" were obviously culled from the draft ideas, why weren't "tax dollar wasting"? Maybe it is time to change that famous quote:
"Taxpayer Money is for Spending; Water is for fighting over."
Capital is a resource, just like water, to have a vision plan that considers the limitation of one resource while ignoring the limitations of another is hypocritical. To be credible, these committees should at least make an attempt to acknowledge the fiscal limitations and propose viable methods of finance beyond OPM.
As for the different water ideas in the Vision 2020 draft document, I have a lot of comments about them, mainly, that they are already being addressed (or achieved in some cases), and those plans extend well past the 2020 horizon to 2025 and beyond, though it appears that most people on the committees did very little research into the depth of water resource planning that has been going on for decades in the City and State.
That's another post altogether.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: So much for a Vision Plan that isn't supposed consider limitations.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.jessicaswell.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2728
7 Comments
For the record, I know these are not official goals and that they don't have the weight of government behind them, but if you look at the people involved in the process, the operative word is, yet.
I think we also need big ideas about taxation as a vision goal, and big ideas on how you accomplish a vision wish list without increasing an ever growing tax burden.
I don't begrudge these citizens that have taken the time to work on these issues, it is just that I think they need to consider the cost in some cases.
Having worked on one of the committees I can tell you that the process by its very design puts no downward pressure on any ideas whatsoever.
From the very beginning it is strictly brainstorming. Every idea has equal merit. Nothing is culled at first. Technology, geography, and cost are not to be used to define any sort of envelope in which ideas must be fit. The only real filter on anything is when it comes time to rank all of the ideas and pass along the surviving top 5 or so ideas. But there isn't any real critique of the ideas or a chance to pitch others before everyone is asked to do that.
If that happens it happens upstairs from where I was in the process.
Also, there are a lot of good, smart, and involved people who work on these committees and some good ideas are generated. Having said that, though, it is a self-selecting group and consequently using whatever comes out of these committees as a measure of "what Midlanders want" has the same accuracy as any other poll in which the population self-selects.
By my very nature (and profession), I tend toward the process of how vision becomes reality, and for better or worse, I have to consciously halt my natural process in any brainstorming sessions.
I wholly agree with you regarding the capacity of the individuals that took their time to brainstorm about these issues, I wish I had the time, but all of the meetings have fallen on bad days, and I am a bit consumed with what I consider to be an important community and volunteer project at UTPB.
Maybe the problem isn't this process, but what happens afterwards. We've seen decision makers use efforts like this to forward their agendas by inflating the intent of this process, which as you point out, isn't wholly representative of the community because the participants were self-selected.
Short of creating Civic Comment Pools that get summoned like juries, I don't know that you can find a better system.
I kind of rank the driving factors in a decision made by our elected officials this way:
1. Election Outcomes on Issues
2. Interestes of Elected and Appointed Officials
3. Staff Recommendations (tie)
3. Consultant Recommendations (tie)
5. Commissioned Issue Focus Groups/ Committees
6. Community Vision like efforts
7. Crank Internet Blogs.
Hmmm...Maybe I'm ranking us too high?
Why do I bother calling up pleope when I can just read this!
3UJTUG zkrdtjfpagnq
jwAWi4 jnlgadnqfwsi
Good comment Os. Really on the mark.