Working Paper 93-25, August 27, 1993(1)
By Linda Jourgensen
Former Boulder Mayor and County Commissioner
(1) This paper is an edited transcript of a talk given by Linda Jourgensen for the Intractable Conflict/Constructive Confrontation Project on April 10, 1993. Funding for this Project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of Colorado. All ideas presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Consortium, the University, or Hewlett Foundation. For more information, contact the Conflict Resolution Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail: crc@cubldr.colorado.edu.
© 1993. Conflict Resolution Consortium. Do not reprint without permission.
Much can be learned from community activist, Ricky Weiser.1 First, she is dedicated to and believes in the importance of constituent involvement in government decision-making. Individual decisions become the sum of future realities. Ricky serves as an ombudsperson, not for individuals or groups, but for the environment, the arts, good land use planning, flood control, and a myriad of other issues which make this city what it is. She is proof positive that coming to meetings, speaking with knowledge as well as belief, and joining committees are far better ways to influence the outcome of a decision than griping over the back fence. Early citizen involvement is now conventional wisdom in the Boulder city government decision-making process. Richard Nixon saw the successful political leader as a visionary who would convince the majority, not to participate in the formation of the vision, but to follow the leader. Governing for him became a selling job, but local issues are under your nose and are seen by those with any interest as being capable of influence by an ordinary citizen. And yet there are a few which have many of the characteristics of intractable conflict, which Heidi and Guy Burgess outline in their working paper.2
These conflicts are about strongly held beliefs and about the inviolable sanctity of one's chosen life-style. They are about the reality of a big change occurring with the perceived diminishing of safety, property values, a restful domain, and, in general, all the things that make one's home life good. It might be a home for troubles youth or a proposed building on a heretofore vacant parcel (the latter has characterized such conflicts in Boulder more than the former; I suspect because the community is more tolerant of the disadvantaged than of growth). Someone, often the person closest to the project, mobilizes those who can be affected in any way, and the fight begins.
In two recent conflicts, one involving land owned by the federal government and another involving land owned by the University of Colorado (state government), presented a characteristic sometimes found in protesters--that is, the feeling that winning was impossible. The University and the National Institute for Science and Technology, because they were exempted from the dictates of city land-use regulations, were seen as two 600-pound gorillas who could sit where they liked.
To explain all the intricacies of these two projects would test the reader's interest; however, while it is true that the projects have been continually approved, it is also true that the destructive elements--almost irrational distrust of the state and federal government, an unwillingness at certain points to accept anything but a buy-out of the land for open space, and long tirades late into the night at City Council meetings--were reduced by both the University and NIST when they agreed to give up some of their sovereignty to make the neighbors less hostile. The Burgess' term this "using an integrative system." In these cases, the protesters made their needs for security important and rational to the developers such that University and federal officials felt they could give up some of the control they had on their land over the city with loss of face.
It could be argued that the city should not be involved from beginning to middle to end in every proposed development, and there may be ways to better formalize this. A panel member on the NIMBY panel3 suggested that a trained mediator work over each issue between developer and citizens until the conflict was resolved. Whether an ombudsperson to the neighborhoods or a mediator, some policy should exist to promote constructive resolution. It is hard, however, in the current no-growth-in-my-neighborhood climate to imagine that in a difficult/high stakes local issue the citizens would not involve elected officials. They can't fire the mediator but can vote the rascals out of office. Nonetheless, listening and talk can lead to a better understanding. A policy which implemented this as a first step might be helpful.
Despite the frustration from public hearings calculated to force me to pick sides, which I experienced as a member of the Boulder City Council and its mayor, I am a firm believer that the ever greater enfranchisement of citizens on boards and commissions as well as single issues can only benefit government. Boulder has a history of citizen involvement through volunteerism both in government and civic endeavors. Citizens learn tolerance for other's ideas as well as constructive and creative give-and-take to arrive at mutually-agreeable conclusions. Then when a very personal threatening development happens to one neighborhood, the community is less willing to assume that the government is at fault. When increased taxes need a "yes" vote, when limitations are placed on parking, when the library has to be closed for half a day a week, the people who vote will be less likely to gather signatures for a recall petition or referendum and more willing to listen to the reasons why.
_____________________________
1 Ricky Weiser appeared on this panel with Jourgensen. A transcription of her talk is available as Consortium Working Paper 93-26.
2 Consortium Working Paper 91-6.
3 This panel was held during the Consortium's "Intractable Conflict/Contructive Confrontation Conference," held April 10, 1993. Panel members included Spense Havlick, City of Boulder Councilman; Allan Wallis, Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado at Denver; Penelope Canan, University of Denver; and Todd Bryan, ASSENT. Their talks are available as Consortium Working Papers 93-15, 93-33, 93-16 and 93-17, respectively.