Occasionally we believe we hit on some very legitimate concerns that the public would have – if they only knew about them.
We’re going to reprint below an editorial from about this time last year about a much-touted study, this one in Mebane, but it could have been any local jurisdiction, inasmuch as the studies – and the philosophies behind them – are about a dime a dozen.
Just this week, the same city council, in Mebane, heard about another study and the “public input” that the city had received on it, this time a land use study.
We’re not meaning to pick on Mebane, it’s just they seem to especially enjoy paying for such studies and selecting consultants who like to brag about a lot of participation, even when there isn’t much.
Similar to last year’s study – and just about every other one we’ve seen bragged about in every local jurisdiction – this one actually had anemic participation rates, but was heralded as though almost the entire population had turned in their opinions to city government.
The numbers are different this year, from the ones cited last year, but the underlying principles and the very limited extent of actual participation are much the same.
Consultants and city officials inevitably like to claim there’s widespread interest, input, and ultimately support for the results of their studies.This week’s stats from Mebane: 940 returned online survey responses, another 120 responded to a later survey.
A whopping total of 60 people turned out for one public meeting to voice their views; at another, it was an even more underwhelming 45.
As usual, no one could assure us, the city council, or the public whether the surveys and attendees are separate, unique responses or attendees, or merely the same cadre of true believers who turn out for every meeting and submit multiple responses online, helping to create the illusion of widespread participation.
The claim is that the new land use plan represents a “collective vision for the future.”
Still, with Mebane’s population growth to over 20,000, the sum total participation – even if from individual citizens, rather than multiple responses from the same few – represents only about 5 percent of Mebane’s citizenry that has voiced their opinions about a future comprehensive land use plan. That super small minority of participation is not much of a “collective vision,” in our judgment.
Still, there’s only so much lipstick that can be put on this pig.
There’s another “public forum” to be held next week – Tuesday, May 13, from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at the Mebane Arts and Community Center – and one part of us would recommend that wary citizens turn out for it, primarily as a defensive move, to see what mischief their neighbors, city bureaucrats, and their consultants might have in store for them.
Because here’s the $64,000 loophole that is always the same with these municipal land use plans.
Never, and we mean never, at this phase of the consideration and development of the plans are residents whose land is being viewed for a different future land use purpose notified about the specific future impact on their property.
And while officials often say, as they did this week, that our concerns are premature, it always ends up that there’s never a good time to notify residents of potential changes in their area.
Inevitably, public officials will, reflexively, say it would simply be too expensive to mail notifications to property owners – obviously ignoring the tens of thousands of tax dollars spent on the consultant in the first place. (Talk about misplaced priorities.)
As we note below, the similarity in all these plans is the initial promise that they are merely advisory – “guidance” was the favored term used this week by the consultant in Mebane.
But, as soon as the “advisory” plan is adopted by the city council (some months down the road, in the case of the comprehensive land use plan), it becomes, in practice, treated by city bureaucrats – and sometimes by council members, as well – as though presumptively binding.
We’ve seen time and time again when future rezoning requests are put forward, citizens turn out to say no one ever told them that a different possible use was being contemplated for the lot beside them or even their own property.
The most common objections are when single-family residential areas and/or long vacant parcels (fields, forests, etc.) are given a preliminary designation by these plans as future locations for development far more dense and often far different from the homeowners who live there now: apartments, commercial/retail shopping centers, or industrial projects.
“This is what was envisioned. . .” (by the land use plan) citizens are inevitably told by city officials, as though that’s a sufficient justification.
But the fact that “no one ever told them,” in our judgment, is a fatal flaw in these long-term plans.
Citizens, this week particularly in Mebane, beware.
