Is It Government, Not Citizens, Guiding Bristol's Future at Public Workshops?

On June 18th 2016,  the City of Bristol held a public workshop at the Tunxis of Bristol location to solicit public input for the Route 6 Corridor Planning Study.  Despite the discussions at public meetings, a local story about the meeting, and the promotion of it by at least one city official and myself, the turnout was quite dismal.

 The fact that the majority of those in attendance were either members of the Planning Commission or otherwise some other form of government official was discussed during the meeting.  So I when I saw this quote in a local publication it stuck out like a sore thumb.  I was not the first, nor the only one who noticed.  In addition to what seems like a plug for the city's branding effort, the quote would seem to imply that there was a large amount of public input from the general citizenry gathered.  I am not the only person whom feels this is not the case. 

The people in the photo below are all either members of government or associated parties save for two or three.  One is a member of consultant company commissioned for the Route 6 Corridor Study and one for consultation for downtown Bristol redevelopment, one is a city councilor, two are former Chamber of Commerce Presidents (one of which is running for State Senator), about a half dozen are members of the City of Bristol Planning Commission.... well, I l could go on but am sure you get the point.

  The charrette leading the meeting had hoped to break us into smaller groups so as to have smaller conversations and lead us through to achieve a particular objective as all charrettes do. I was however  not convinced that was a good way to solicit public input under these circumstances so therefore I objected.   I was not the only one to object either.   Even Councilwoman Mary Fortier agreed that pubic attendance was minimal stating that only six private residents were in attendance (as you can see for yourself at this link  in a short video clip.)

 In the end there was a consensus that there would be an open public discourse and we moved on together.   Discussion covered various areas in the corridor, the pros, cons and suggestions for those areas.  All members of the public all were allowed to discuss their views in part, but some were not pleased with the turn of events.  As one member of the public in attendance described it.

" When the question was asked can we move from development to the traffic issues we were shut down. The consultant also twisted the statistics - 20% of the residents have lived in the area since 1969 - and are aging out. But no one mentioned the other 80% who are younger! Very frustrating meeting."

The meeting actually ended at around 11 a.m.- An hour prior to the scheduled end.

  Some members of the city's boards, commissions and associations provided comments at the public meeting in support of certain initiatives that do not appear to be held on a level of high importance with the general public.  Perhaps the municipal meeting held prior to the public one was a different format or perhaps some of those speaking were unable to attend the other meeting.  That is not to imply that when members of the community become government officials, that they cease to be citizens of the community.

  Nevertheless, no reasonable person can deny that the city's planning workshops are lacking in attendance of members of the general public.  In this instance, the government is basically soliciting input from the government themselves in the public's stead.  This is not a good way to have proper representative government, nor see future development guided by the citizens themselves.    I hope that this problem does not reoccur when planners for Bristol's downtown solicit public input or else we could possibly see the city head in a direction that most residents won't enjoy to go.  It could happen, and has happened in other communities.

   I've included images of the 'information gathering technique' charts dotted with the concerns of those in attendance.   It seems that most are concerned with traffic flow despite the fact that the study itself focused predominantly on development.  I wonder if traffic concerns will be used as a reason to concentrate housing and development in a place where most residents do not want to see it occur.  

There was NO support for apartments in the downtown gateway section of Rte 6. 

  Most of the workshops I have attended have been predominantly attended by municipal representatives and 'interested parties'.    Hopefully we will see more members of the general public in attendance in the future.  I created an event on Facebook for this workshop but few of the members of government I invited shared the event.   The reason why they do not create a Facebook Event and invite all of the city on their own escapes me.  City officials could also target Facebook ads to local residents informing them of the workshops for a small amount of money as suggested by one local resident.   I have recently brought this suggestion to the Bristol Development Authority Downtown Committee in hopes they would incorporate it to their public outreach plan.  Whether or not it it will make any difference ultimately depends on the effort of the general public and the effort of their municipality to reach them. 

  Some residents have asserted that they feel that the city would prefer to limit public involvement as these readily available tools to encourage attendance of such meetings are not being utilized.  Some have concluded that all some are seeking is manufactured consent and have pointed to the article as an indicator of such.   Do you feel that city officials are making every effort to reach the public and garner their attendance?  Do you feel that the article from the local paper implies that there are sufficient outreach efforts and results for such important decisions about the city's future?


(Video Courtesy of the Bristol, CT Open Government Project)