I like to see lots of commenting activity on this blog, but can we please keep it constructive, civil and free of unproven accusation? If not, I'll have to screen the comments before they are posted.
It still amazes me when I hear the bitterness toward elected leaders in this town and the us versus them mentality that pervades in some corners. I'm not saying elected officials don't act in their own self-interest, but even on projects like the levy and efforts to build a new hospital, some people see a nefarious cause at work when money is spent.
Could it be that they made a decision you disagree with, or one that turned out to be a mistake, but that people's intentions are still good?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well spoken (blogged) Mr. Seaton. Well spoken.
It is all so ironic. Those opposed to the Lowes see a nefarious cause in the developer somehow cheating or damaging Ark City. Proponents of the store see a nefarious cause in those who would block it. Maybe it is the Ark City Zeitgeist in action, in other words: the local flavor. Both sides have it, and it is not good for progress.
Until you research something, maybe you shouldn't make a comment like this. The money the city spent on the hospital project was not right and was not their money. The hospital was only a dream of a few individuals at the time with no financing or guarentees at all, and the city had no right at that point to squander the money they did on studies-those studies could have waited until it was apparent the project would take place. Why don't you go up to ciy hall and look at the unbelievable amount that was spent before you make further comments on something you obviously have'nt looked into enough or at all? It was your tax dollars too, and with the city claiming such tight budgets, I have to wonder how they were able to spend these funds in the first place? or who suffered elsewhere because of these funds being redirected? like their employees maybe? or us citizens? The paper needs to report on things like this, the citizens have a right to know. If it happens to be negative instead of all happy and right, well that's the city's fault for not keeping in mind that it's not their money and that we the people are watching their every move. We have a right to complain and we have a right to watch closely, and we have a right to yell loudly when our leaders are not doing right by us. That's not being negative, it's our right and our duty to speak up if things are not being done the way they should be. The citizen's in this town have just followed along for too long and we have to start making city hall accountable to all of us, not just a select few.
If defying the will of the people is not "nefarious" in their position then what would you call it?
If having a lawyer hired and representing an individual get the spotlight along with the city and developer (who are trying to do business), isn't that "nefarious"?
Is it no surprise that people are bitter when the town leaders do not want to do the will of the people?
I give us an F. We failed! Even this original post that simply called for civility and a bit of restraint before impugning the character of those elected officials and non-elected city leaders was swallowed up in yet another tablet full of redundant assertions of inherit and indisputable correctness based solely on the authority of the author of the post.
We had a bona fide proposal (does not assert good or bad) which might influence the future of the community regardless of the decision of the council members.
Yet, we dug in our heels and buried our heads in mounds of opionism, unwarranted personal slams and unfounded allegations against the integrity of those tasked with making the decision.
To what am I assigning the failing grade? We flunked listening. With repeated opportunities to engage in dialog that would transfer thoughts and opinions from one to another, we persisted and insisted on overwriting, outtalking and defiantly ignoring the voices of our neighbors and friends.
Of course, we want to be heard and we want our opinions to be treated with respect but...the foundation for receiving a good audience is in first demonstrating a good audience.
As these blogs and the letters to the editor continued there was not one single call for clarity of a differing opinion. Fascinatingly, there were times when one's subsequent comments might be argumentative against themselves if there was no counterpoint offered in a timely manner.
The arguments began with personal preferences and grew to epic proportion with both proponents and opponents escalating to predictions of Armageddon and the end of the world, or maybe just Arkansas City. The phrase “death of downtown” or “death of Arkansas City” was ultimately offered as frequently as tootsie rolls at Halloween.
How did we get there? By simply being unwilling to host meaningful dialog and to listen to the thoughts, opinions and concerns of our friends and neighbors or anyone who did not respond with a hearty "Amen" to our own profound prognostication.
A couple of Steven Coveyisms come to mind for future reference. We certainly again, in the immediate or distant future, will entertain another proposal for "progress".
How to handle it successfully comes from contemplating two concepts on listening. Covey offers that most people listen to respond rather than listening to understand. That is marked by asking, "Did I understand you to say...?" Or, we respond, “Do I understand your concerns to be…?”
Secondly, the listening principle is seek first to understand and then to be understood. This is extremely important because whether a developer proceeds with a project in southern Cowley or not, the undesirable outcome left in its wake is a small community that allowed itself to become polarized and frigidly divided.
Before the next proposal comes, I argue now that priority number one for our council members is to treat the ailment and to promote healing. The good news is that Christmas time and the New Year affords an excellent opportunity and climate to offer some community building effort. Best wishes to the city leaders.
As you watched your city straining at the seams over the diametrically opposed opinions on the BIG Box proposal, I think you made the only decision possible. You gave us another chance to pass the listening class so that we might remain one community when all the dust is settled. We will surely earn a better grade next time around.
The saddest thing about all of this is the lack of facts being thrown out as if they are reality...in the case of the hospital...the money was given back to the city...not one cent was lost...check your facts. If you are indeed watching their every move you would have known that and not been so quick to jump on the anti everything movement. This town loves being against stuff and we will pay the price as we lost the tax dollars that will be in whatever town the industries and the retail developers go to and they will go somewhere. We will also spend money on gas getting to those places and lost businesses to those places and when the businesses downtown need to sell as the owners retire the storefronts will be vacant...the we will have to drive more places to get more things. Turning down retail did not save this town IT KILLED IT!!!
Charles is a very accomplished pontificator. Wasn't he for this thing a couple of weeks ago? Or was he for it before he was against it before he was for it? I love politicians!
Post a Comment