“Too much” public participation in Seattle?
Planetizen links to an LA Times article, re: the heated discussion in Seattle over how to replace an aging elevated expressway through the heart of downtown. Among the choices are replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a new elevated expressway, fixing the old one, or digging a tunnel. Then there’s the “no and hell no” alternative—use surface streets and transit to move traffic. A mail advisory ballot has been sent to voters, but “no one expects the voters to have the final word on the subject.”
The LA Times:
The saga of the neglected roadway is a textbook example of what many call the “Seattle process,” or the reputed civic inclination here to seek so much public input and listen to so many sides of the an argument that nothing actually gets done.
Is this an issue of “too much” public participation? Perhaps if participation is defined as everyone taking sides and then sticking to their guns. If the whole point of public involvement is to forge a consensus and common vision, then too much participation is just code for “we missed a few steps here.” Rather than too much input, one might call it too little leadership and too little technique. This is, after all, a “multigenerational” decision. Whatever is decided about the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle will have to live with it for a long, long time.
The thoughtful blogger at Carless in Seattle, who has followed the debate closely, notes that putting the issue to a vote among a very divided public may not be the best course.
Voters are not specialists in government, they can not be held accountable for their decisions, and they are rarely prepared to see viewpoints other than their own.
He praises a senator’s proposal—in another district and on another freeway issue—to bring in a mediator to “avoid a political meltdown” and “work with neighborhood groups to reach consensus on the project” (as reported in The Seattle Times).