KCAL - naysayers
I came across this article that speaks to the "head verse the heart of public" interest groups, that may have some current relation to the misinformation surrounding the LVEC.
The article speaks to many "assumptions and hearsay" that many "naysayers" groups (like KCAL) cherry pick as their main arguments against such a project.
On politics and public interest
The Whig-Standard
Opinion Columns - Saturday, May 19, 2007 Updated @ 11:54:16 PM
COLUMN
By Andrea Gunn
Too often, people complain
about the outcomes of public consultation exercises either because a) they didn’t participate during the exercise and now want to have their opinions heard or b) they don’t like the outcome of the public consultations because their opinions were not reflected in the outcome.
It is impossible to get 100-per-cent agreement on any issue. Any group or exercise that purports to achieve the will of the people‚ is unrealistic. The purpose of public consultation should be to get a cross-section of viewpoints, so that an issue can be seen from all angles. Not just KCAL.
If there is a great deal of consensus on an issue, so much the better. It makes the job of the people charged with putting vision into action much easier.
In real life, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Elected officials, (interest groups) too, have limitations on what they are able to do – limitations they don’t always recognize. This is true of politicians at any level, from municipal to federal.
Civic issues often need to be dealt with over the longer term, over several political terms of office. But politicians tend to frame issues reactively and in shorter time frames, within their elected terms of office.
They go for the short-term wins. Sadly, it is often not enough to act sensibly; politicians need to be seen to act on behalf of their constituents. Merely weighing various interests, seconding sensible decisions and acting in the best interest of the community isn’t nearly as exciting, and won’t necessarily get you any votes in the next election.
There’s nothing wrong with a politician taking on the little cases, like examining the need for the stop light in a neighbourhood where auto traffic is perceived as increasing. But, to say an interest groups "expert" on traffic is (always) right and everyone else is (always) wrong is an example of a lack of well rounded knowledge.
Ambition does not equal ability and good intentions are no substitute for well-rounded knowledge.
There’s an old cliche that you can’t fight city hall, as if city hall were an entity unto itself instead of an organization composed of trained, experienced local residents who have chosen to go into public service.
Framing the interests of the community against the perceived interests of bureaucrats is terribly short-sighted. Ad hominem arguments are those which go after the person with whom one disagrees, rather than the logic of their position.
Too often, when public debate is aired about local issues, the dialogue is cheapened with ad hominem attacks. (see KCAL web site)
I’d like to see public discourse on these issues be a little more mature, so that whatever the outcome, whether it is a policy, bylaw or building, the process isn’t littered with cheap shots and personal attacks.
It’s a lot easier to live with an outcome you don’t completely agree with, if you can see that the process used to get to the outcome was rational, and professionally handled.
There is little doubt it comes (to experience and unbias understanding) of the LVEC to know that groups like KCAL and others know only militant behaviour and adhoc statements that border on ludeness.
Its these groups that have little experience with multipurpose facilites (other than small town hearsay or myopic sound byte research) that has underminded the City's communication process such as the case for Kingston's new LVEC project.
Indeed; a pure example of this is when KCAL submitted (their so called expert) a Ms. Mary Adams an ("Associate prof at Queens) ...
that she "has studied LVEC's and their economic benefit to the community.
But, when we contacted Ms. Adams she said: "I have no experience or hands on experience nor have I studied LVEC's".
The example she and KCAL also use as their (example) is a BILLION dollar basball stadium (not an LVEC) in New York City that is located in a run down slum of the U.S.
How is this a comparision?
Is Kingston's facility a 100,000 seat, 3 season facility?
How can KCAL suggest she is an expert, or Bruce Todd is an engineer? (They are not!)
This is what Andrea Gunn means by having real knowledge before one calls themselves experts on any public project"
Andrea Gunn works in policy and communications. She is a member of the Whig-Standard’s community editorial board.
Edit/Delete Message
The article speaks to many "assumptions and hearsay" that many "naysayers" groups (like KCAL) cherry pick as their main arguments against such a project.
On politics and public interest
The Whig-Standard
Opinion Columns - Saturday, May 19, 2007 Updated @ 11:54:16 PM
COLUMN
By Andrea Gunn
Too often, people complain
about the outcomes of public consultation exercises either because a) they didn’t participate during the exercise and now want to have their opinions heard or b) they don’t like the outcome of the public consultations because their opinions were not reflected in the outcome.
It is impossible to get 100-per-cent agreement on any issue. Any group or exercise that purports to achieve the will of the people‚ is unrealistic. The purpose of public consultation should be to get a cross-section of viewpoints, so that an issue can be seen from all angles. Not just KCAL.
If there is a great deal of consensus on an issue, so much the better. It makes the job of the people charged with putting vision into action much easier.
In real life, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Elected officials, (interest groups) too, have limitations on what they are able to do – limitations they don’t always recognize. This is true of politicians at any level, from municipal to federal.
Civic issues often need to be dealt with over the longer term, over several political terms of office. But politicians tend to frame issues reactively and in shorter time frames, within their elected terms of office.
They go for the short-term wins. Sadly, it is often not enough to act sensibly; politicians need to be seen to act on behalf of their constituents. Merely weighing various interests, seconding sensible decisions and acting in the best interest of the community isn’t nearly as exciting, and won’t necessarily get you any votes in the next election.
There’s nothing wrong with a politician taking on the little cases, like examining the need for the stop light in a neighbourhood where auto traffic is perceived as increasing. But, to say an interest groups "expert" on traffic is (always) right and everyone else is (always) wrong is an example of a lack of well rounded knowledge.
Ambition does not equal ability and good intentions are no substitute for well-rounded knowledge.
There’s an old cliche that you can’t fight city hall, as if city hall were an entity unto itself instead of an organization composed of trained, experienced local residents who have chosen to go into public service.
Framing the interests of the community against the perceived interests of bureaucrats is terribly short-sighted. Ad hominem arguments are those which go after the person with whom one disagrees, rather than the logic of their position.
Too often, when public debate is aired about local issues, the dialogue is cheapened with ad hominem attacks. (see KCAL web site)
I’d like to see public discourse on these issues be a little more mature, so that whatever the outcome, whether it is a policy, bylaw or building, the process isn’t littered with cheap shots and personal attacks.
It’s a lot easier to live with an outcome you don’t completely agree with, if you can see that the process used to get to the outcome was rational, and professionally handled.
There is little doubt it comes (to experience and unbias understanding) of the LVEC to know that groups like KCAL and others know only militant behaviour and adhoc statements that border on ludeness.
Its these groups that have little experience with multipurpose facilites (other than small town hearsay or myopic sound byte research) that has underminded the City's communication process such as the case for Kingston's new LVEC project.
Indeed; a pure example of this is when KCAL submitted (their so called expert) a Ms. Mary Adams an ("Associate prof at Queens) ...
that she "has studied LVEC's and their economic benefit to the community.
But, when we contacted Ms. Adams she said: "I have no experience or hands on experience nor have I studied LVEC's".
The example she and KCAL also use as their (example) is a BILLION dollar basball stadium (not an LVEC) in New York City that is located in a run down slum of the U.S.
How is this a comparision?
Is Kingston's facility a 100,000 seat, 3 season facility?
How can KCAL suggest she is an expert, or Bruce Todd is an engineer? (They are not!)
This is what Andrea Gunn means by having real knowledge before one calls themselves experts on any public project"
Andrea Gunn works in policy and communications. She is a member of the Whig-Standard’s community editorial board.
Edit/Delete Message
Labels: KCAL - "cherry picking"
posted by LVEC EDUCATED at 9:59 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home