3 ms·

From what I've seen in Toronto and after having spoken with a local councillor, the thing is that those NIMBY show up to all consultation meetings. Any new bik

From what I've seen in Toronto and after having spoken with a local councillor, the thing is that those NIMBY show up to all consultation meetings. Any new bike lane require a community consultation (which is a problem in itself!, but let's forget that for a minute)... but who comes to those? The working class families that have to take care of their kids in the evening? Or older folks that have no other plans on a random week night? Before COVID all those meetings were in person at some community center. Of course for any cyclist to get there, they'd need to bike on a street with no bike lanes. So who shows up? People in cars! Things are slightly easier now because lots of those meetings moved online with Zoom, making it more accessible to a bunch of new people. But I'd recommend (if you're not doing it already!) to keep showing up to all consultation meetings, because that's the only way things get done. Concillor was telling me it was hard to make a case to the civic servant that they should keep pushing for bike lanes when ALL consultations kept only getting opposition. Even thought they all knew it was likely more popular, but it's hard to argue with the "democratic" process.

pas 4y ago
How is that democratic? At best it's a farce. If there was no vote then it's just some arbitrary evaluation of that consultation. I mean what's the procedure to calculate the for-against of a public comment? Isn't the elected officials (supervisors, councilors) elected to do the campaign based on what they think their voters would want? Isn't there a bike club or some other token NGO they ought to invite? :o
acabal 4y ago
IMHO, the core of the problem is that elected politicians are asking constituents in the first place. I elected a politician to represent my interests for X years so I can get on with my life. I didn't elect a politician so they can constantly ask me if it's OK for them to build Thing X, then Thing Y, then Thing Z... I wonder how much more a politician could accomplish if they simply stopped asking? Like, do the job they were elected to do, and not constantly be going to the popularity poll, where it's going to be nobody but NIMBYs filling out 'nay' forms? Just do it! If it truly upsets the community, they can always knock it down at the next election, right?
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  No politician ever was embroiled in a scandal because they asked for too much feedback from their constituency. Expecting them to act counter to their interests is not very realistic, especially when you consider that the same NIMBYs who attend these meetings are the ones that vote in hugely disproportionate numbers. They might be a minority, but they have the time and the resources to use their political power and as such are very influential in modern policy.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  I agree and disagree. I think it is valuable to get input from constituents, especially on infrastructure, but it also doesn't need to be the sole dictating thing. I think getting input to be able to nail down the pros vs cons is reasonable. Especially since, in a city, the project may be in a part of town they are rarely in or do not live in. But for sure, it should not be the full deciding factor but a way to get a scope of the full pros vs cons. Then evaluate if the points brought up were valid, then finally if the pros outweigh the cons.
- mediaman 4y ago
  Why not just do statistically valid polling? The problem is that politicians run this weird highly skewed sampling method of "community input" and then think they've got the pulse of the community, where in fact they've just heard from loudmouths with too much time on their hands. A statistical poll would at least show what the actual constituency wants, not the loud, bored subset. The subset problem is also why we see much more extreme politics in cities among elected positions that have less visibility: city council members tend to be much more extreme than mayors, because the latter has greater voter participation.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    You need to get a poll of people who will vote in the next election should this pass, and a different poll for people who will vote in the next election should this fail to pass. Note that different people will show up should this pass vs not pass, and it is people who turn up on election day that matter (show up means their ballot is counted, absentee ballots count as showing up) This is very different from statistical polling.
scythe 4y ago
>Any new bike lane require a community consultation (which is a problem in itself!, but let's forget that for a minute)... but who comes to those? The working class families that have to take care of their kids in the evening? Or older folks that have no other plans on a random week night? Before COVID all those meetings were in person at some community center. Of course for any cyclist to get there, they'd need to bike on a street with no bike lanes. So who shows up? People in cars! I wonder if you could have something like jury duty for these meetings, where a dozen people from the community are selected to comment each week or something.
- orwin 4y ago
  Pseudo randomly selected, then informed for like 3 days about the issues, discuss it themselves for a day then vote. And we should do this for each issues
  - bluGill 4y ago
    NIMBYs will just lobby these people. I've seen it happen.
    - nybble41 4y ago
      That's easily solved: Just don't announce who was selected until after the vote.
- specialist 4y ago
  Yup. aka Citizens' Assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_assembly One example is Oregon State's Citizen's Initiative Review process, which is just like you describe. https://medium.com/participo/citizens-initiative-review-helping-citizens-make-better-informed-voting-choices-a0d2bf576da9 https://medium.com/participo/citizens-initiative-review-help... https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens%27_Initiative_Review https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens%27_Initiative_Review https://healthydemocracy.org/podcast/2020/01/06/podcast-democracy-nerd-exploring-oregon-style-democracy/ https://healthydemocracy.org/podcast/2020/01/06/podcast-demo...
vanviegen 4y ago
If you really want to know what the locals want, make it easy for everyone to voice their opinions. An admittedly straightforward example: in my city, each street gets to decide for themselves if they want paid parking or not. (Residents and businesses can get a permit for a reasonable yearly fee.) A vote can be requested by any resident at most once every two years, in which case every house in the street receives a letter with information, a voting form, and a return envelope. I think this is a lot better than basing decisions on the opinions of what's likely to be a vocal minority that shows up on consultation meeting.

pas 4y ago

How is that democratic? At best it's a farce. If there was no vote then it's just some arbitrary evaluation of that consultation. I mean what's the procedure to calculate the for-against of a public comment? Isn't the elected officials (supervisors, councilors) elected to do the campaign based on what they think their voters would want? Isn't there a bike club or some other token NGO they ought to invite? :o

acabal 4y ago

IMHO, the core of the problem is that elected politicians are asking constituents in the first place. I elected a politician to represent my interests for X years so I can get on with my life. I didn't elect a politician so they can constantly ask me if it's OK for them to build Thing X, then Thing Y, then Thing Z... I wonder how much more a politician could accomplish if they simply stopped asking? Like, do the job they were elected to do, and not constantly be going to the popularity poll, where it's going to be nobody but NIMBYs filling out 'nay' forms? Just do it! If it truly upsets the community, they can always knock it down at the next election, right?

idiotsecant 4y ago
No politician ever was embroiled in a scandal because they asked for too much feedback from their constituency. Expecting them to act counter to their interests is not very realistic, especially when you consider that the same NIMBYs who attend these meetings are the ones that vote in hugely disproportionate numbers. They might be a minority, but they have the time and the resources to use their political power and as such are very influential in modern policy.
tcmart14 4y ago
I agree and disagree. I think it is valuable to get input from constituents, especially on infrastructure, but it also doesn't need to be the sole dictating thing. I think getting input to be able to nail down the pros vs cons is reasonable. Especially since, in a city, the project may be in a part of town they are rarely in or do not live in. But for sure, it should not be the full deciding factor but a way to get a scope of the full pros vs cons. Then evaluate if the points brought up were valid, then finally if the pros outweigh the cons.
mediaman 4y ago
Why not just do statistically valid polling? The problem is that politicians run this weird highly skewed sampling method of "community input" and then think they've got the pulse of the community, where in fact they've just heard from loudmouths with too much time on their hands. A statistical poll would at least show what the actual constituency wants, not the loud, bored subset. The subset problem is also why we see much more extreme politics in cities among elected positions that have less visibility: city council members tend to be much more extreme than mayors, because the latter has greater voter participation.
- bluGill 4y ago
  You need to get a poll of people who will vote in the next election should this pass, and a different poll for people who will vote in the next election should this fail to pass. Note that different people will show up should this pass vs not pass, and it is people who turn up on election day that matter (show up means their ballot is counted, absentee ballots count as showing up) This is very different from statistical polling.

scythe 4y ago

>Any new bike lane require a community consultation (which is a problem in itself!, but let's forget that for a minute)... but who comes to those? The working class families that have to take care of their kids in the evening? Or older folks that have no other plans on a random week night? Before COVID all those meetings were in person at some community center. Of course for any cyclist to get there, they'd need to bike on a street with no bike lanes. So who shows up? People in cars! I wonder if you could have something like jury duty for these meetings, where a dozen people from the community are selected to comment each week or something.

orwin 4y ago
Pseudo randomly selected, then informed for like 3 days about the issues, discuss it themselves for a day then vote. And we should do this for each issues
- bluGill 4y ago
  NIMBYs will just lobby these people. I've seen it happen.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    That's easily solved: Just don't announce who was selected until after the vote.
specialist 4y ago
Yup. aka Citizens' Assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_assembly One example is Oregon State's Citizen's Initiative Review process, which is just like you describe. https://medium.com/participo/citizens-initiative-review-helping-citizens-make-better-informed-voting-choices-a0d2bf576da9 https://medium.com/participo/citizens-initiative-review-help... https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens%27_Initiative_Review https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens%27_Initiative_Review https://healthydemocracy.org/podcast/2020/01/06/podcast-democracy-nerd-exploring-oregon-style-democracy/ https://healthydemocracy.org/podcast/2020/01/06/podcast-demo...

vanviegen 4y ago

If you really want to know what the locals want, make it easy for everyone to voice their opinions. An admittedly straightforward example: in my city, each street gets to decide for themselves if they want paid parking or not. (Residents and businesses can get a permit for a reasonable yearly fee.) A vote can be requested by any resident at most once every two years, in which case every house in the street receives a letter with information, a voting form, and a return envelope. I think this is a lot better than basing decisions on the opinions of what's likely to be a vocal minority that shows up on consultation meeting.