Blame! Rights! Public Say-So! and Who Cares!

Problem Solved
Originally uploaded by badjonni

One of the most confusing parts of being around municipal planning groups is all the background material a municipal government has on record. Past public consultation meetings, stakeholder meetings, community awareness and participation campaigns, and the list goes on. Of course, the fact they have this stuff on record isn't really the confusing issue. Rather the confusing issue is related to all the complaints and public outcries claiming the city is pushing plans forward without public input.

Granted residents of today may be surprised by things that have been on the books and agenda for the last decade. Ironically, as I looked into what is happening in the City of Vancouver, much of what I have seen on the tables for development tomorrow, have actually been through iteration after iteration for up to a decade or more in some instances. It surprises me to no-end seeing residents holding up progress because they feel slighted that they didn't get a say. God forbid we actually empower someone into a public role and then take away their decision-making ability once they're in place.

We elect our civic officials, provincial officials, and federal officials. Underneath that level are hordes of employees who have competed much more tenaciously than the average private employee for their job - government has stricter hiring policies and less favoritism than private hires. These city employees, right up to federal employees care much more about their work and the positive changes they're trying to implement than the average every-day Canadian worried about their smaller world-view. Give it some thought, you'll recognize that your perspective can only appreciate what you daily see. If you tackle some big stuff, you'll recognize the bigger picture. If you're working the local hardware store, or computer store, you may not appreciate other influencing factors. And this is what I don't understand.

People like to complain, people like to get their way, we don't like to change, we want things to remain the same, and I don't want to put money in a parking meter. Yet, regardless of these things that we don't like and I don't want, change happens. We elect people, there are capable people keeping the wheels moving, and sometimes we like what they do, and sometimes we don't. Even so, at the end of the day the world we live in steadily improves in some ways, maybe less-so in others.

All this just to say: Have some trust in the process, the people who came before, and what might still shape up in the future. Change doesn't come easy, so what the heck are the complaints doing other than making it more difficult? Activism is badly named; I feel it should be more Reactivism, or Retardism, or something that shows how slow they are to get involved and how Activists tend to be more reactionary and destructive as opposed to involved in working toward solutions. Seriously, I'd much rather see people roll up their sleeves, take a look at their issues, their neighbour's issues, the broader issues, the hunger issues, the shelter issues, and so on, and come to the realization that these solutions don't come from thin air - they come from hard work, dedication, and the blood and sweat of people who are Walking the Line. All I ever see stereo-typical activists do is Draw a Line.

Yes, there are good actions and changes brought about by Activism. My favourite example is Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Muhammad Ali to name a few. It's a quality of being in this world that vastly redefines Activism from its' use today.