That Loud, Opinionated Person That No One Can Seem To Escape
In a post entitled That Loud, Opinionated Person That No One Can Seem To Escape Local web developer Blake Haney and creator of the Unified New Orleans Plan website has this to say about civic participation.
We all know one of these folks. They go to every meeting. They always have an opinion on everything, anything. They know what is right and wrong. But it is usually a critique followed by no solutions to the problem at hand. So in the end they know what is wrong, but not what is right. They bitch continually and feed off the anger of others just like them. It is a vicious cycle.
I don’t know if this is the opinion of the rest of the Unified New Orleans Plan staff, but it’s worth addressing in case it is.
Many people in New Orleans feel obligated to attend meeting upon meeting because they are afraid that if they don’t, people will make decisions about their neighborhood, decisions that do not reflect their interests.
They attend because they are afraid that when they don’t, others might reach out to the map laid across the table and tap the neighborhoods of those absent when for site of the new retention ponds.
They attend because they are afraid that in their absence, others may conclude that the money for their neighborhood’s recovery instead go to fix potholes on Magazine Street.
In many cases, the person who attends every meeting is the person from the neighborhood who is assigned to attend every meeting, so that the rest of the neighborhood can focus on pressing relief and recovery issues.
I am not sure but I think this is what happens to people when they are picked on or not listened to as children.
This is an astute observation. The mocking indifference ties right into that fact that people are not being heard.
For example, real representation is accountable, not volunteer. It is hard not to laugh in meetings before unelected representatives, draped in the vestments of government, who when pressed with hard questions, remind those attending that they have no obligation to attend the meetings themselves.
It’s hard not to laugh for the same reasons that it’s hard not to cry.
14 Comments | No Trackbacks |
comments feed  |
Comment Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Comment Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Alan,
I have to agree with Blake on this. One of my greatest pet peeves is a critic who has nothing to offer other than negativity.
Coming up with a good analysis of the systems at hand, and serious potential flaws is a skill in and of itself.
And it can be a skill that is different from (and not possessed by the person) coming up with alternatives.
This criticism “you don’t offer solutions” has always pissed me off, ever since I was an involved college student 20+ years ago.
Now of course, I know enough about urban revitalization that I can spout off plenty of solutions without breaking a sweat.
Why is it that the powers-that-be don’t want to hear the suggested alternatives and/or solutions either?
See “Tyranny of Process in New Orleans” for more extended rumination about this.
Re: Richard’s comment
[Disclaimer: I'm referring to my experience at other community-type meetings; haven't been to these planning meetings since I live outside of the city]
A reasonable assessment or analysis of a problem is different from monopolizing the microphone to spew incorrect assumptions that only get everyone else even more upset than they need to be. Most citizens aren’t like that, but I’ve seen these other people at civic meetings; and honestly, I wouldn’t miss having to listen to them — not as a politician or a planner or a facilitator, since I am none of those — but as a citizen and neighbor. We may as well tune into the nightly news to hear “news” stories that anchors pull out of their asses.
I think the criticism of such people as wasting our time, delaying progress, not offering solutions or even sharing helpful FACTUAL info or asking relevent questions is appropriate. Especially for those for whom that’s the extent of their civic involvement and who don’t do the things they are capable of doing to improve their community (volunteering, etc.)
Just because you have freedom of speech doesn’t mean you must use it at every presented opportunity. Those freedoms come with responsibilities; and I’ve heard people say false things that got others about as upset as yelling “fire!” would have.
History has proven that there are some problems that would probably still exist had they been left to public opinion & community involvement to solve (women’s voting rights, slavery, segregation, non-hetero marriages, smoking, being able to beat your kid, wearing seatbelts, compulsory auto insurance….). Sometimes limiting public will is for the best; which sounds awful and I hate to even write that, but it’s true and the truth is often ugly.
After all, a majority of our fellow citizens continue to vote for the wrong leadership for the wrong reasons. They need to be at home yelling at themselves as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t normally post much to online discussions, but I have to back up both Alan and Richard Layman here. We all have meeting fatigue at this point in time, no one more than me. But it sure doesn’t look good for the guy who does UNOP’s website to be complaining about citizens who are vocally critical of the process. I guess opinions are only for those with internet access. Frankly, I go to countless meetings every week and the only person who I see rambling on regularly is a certain councilmember who represents a couple of downtown neighborhoods.
But let’s get to the meat of the matter. The UNOP bureaucrats and Concordia folks don’t want anyone watching too closely what they are doing. Could it be because they are an unelected, unnacountable group who have tremendous power to reshape our city?
I’m amazed that we are even having a debate about citizens talking back. I am always wondering why more people aren’t at these meetings watching more closely and raising their voices more.