Matt Todd's Pursuit of Idyll Minds

I find it interesting how often it seems people complaining that I’m not listening are actually just upset that I don’t agree with them. The way they see it, if I were listening, obviously I would agree with them.

I see the complaint that the city is not communicating very well much the same way. Certainly in White Rock we have a lot of work to do for improving how we communicate in the community. But that criticism is too often used as a cover-up for the fact that people find political issues boring or the human reality that we don’t usually pay much attention to things that don’t seem relevant to our lives at the time.

Is this a point of pride? Is there a reason people don’t want to simply say, “I wasn’t listening” or “I never really paid attention to that because it didn’t seem interesting at the time.” Why should there be shame in that?

Why blame government communications for your lack of interest? Government shouldn’t have to market citizenship and democratic responsibilities like toothpaste or beer.

I often hear complaints that start with “If government were run like a business…”. The rant is usually about the time it takes for decision-making or the cost of conducting government affairs. It is also used in criticising the use of tax dollars, often with something similar to “if this was your own money, you’d be more careful with how you spent it.”

Unfortunately, those are competing arguments – act faster, be more careful. It’s a similar contradiction to the oft offered ‘be more creative, take less risk’ advice. Then followed by the angst-laden criticism of wasted tax dollars if an experiment fails.

Government is not business. Government has to be more careful than business. Government has to be much more open and transparent than business.

Openness and transparency is expensive, invites criticism needing a response, and creates an environment of fear and culture of risk aversion.

The expectation that government not make mistakes causes a decision-making system that has many layers of scrutiny built in. All that time, all those reports, and all those procedures – it all costs money. They are all staff intensive. More staff time = more of your tax dollars.

Business doesn’t have to jump through those public hoops. That’s why it takes so much longer for government to get anything done. And perhaps that’s why it’s so rare for a government to go bankrupt, but quite normal for businesses to close shop.

Is this another case of being careful of what you ask for? Will demanding faster decision-making create more risk? Will demanding more careful spending actually cause an increase in administrative spending?

I am increasingly finding myself frustrated with this responsibility, working within this structure, with these personalities. Hypocrisy has always been a big red button for me. I know it’s unavoidable. But I have an expectation that people at least try to not be hypocrites. Is that really an unfair expectation?

I’ve always been totally intolerant of people who demonstrate a lack of respect for others. And I interpret blatant hypocrisy (lack of any attempt to act as you expect of others) as a lack of respect for others. I see it as an issue of fairness and honesty.

When people point out a difference between what I say and what I do, my reaction depends on the context. If the message is delivered within an attempt to dismiss or discredit my perceptions, I find myself getting defensive and turning to the offensive in response. But if they are asking a question – truly interested in finding more about an apparent contradiction – I actually appreciate that. I see it as a learning opportunity, either to better communicate/demonstrate/project my ideas, or to work on weaknesses in my ideas. It can help me strengthen my arguments, or help me see that what I’m working on might not meet the goals I’m hoping for.

I find many people take offense when they’ve told me what they think of me or one of my idea and I follow-up with questions. Somehow my questions are interpreted as argumentative. But I really want to know. I really want to explore what it is they are presenting. I believe there is a difference between arguing and debating, and again with discussing. When someone offers an opinion about me or an idea I am pursuing, I usually want to explore that opinion. How did you arrive at that opinion? What facts were considered? What are the underlying assumptions? What were the perceptions that support those assumptions?

I enjoy those kinds of discussions. I makes my brain feel like it’s getting a good workout. Unfortunately it’s rare to find someone who is willing to engage. It seems most people want to just cast their judgment then run away. Don’t want to talk about it, don’t want to defend it. Just tell me their conclusion but not want to help me understand what it means or how it was arrived at. And certainly don’t want to test it with any of my questions.

I think it’s sad. Sad for democracy that so many seem incapable or unwilling to fully engage in sharing and exploring ideas.

I find a lot of politicians disappointing for the same reason. They act as if they were elected to render judgments, so how they arrive at those conclusions is nobody else’s business.

I think that’s why I have such disdain for populist politics. It seems so often that they follow this concept of “common sense” by working backwards to justify what the community is saying it wants, rather than identifying the problems that is causing them concern, then determining what it is the best course of action. I’m sure the conclusion is often the same, but shouldn’t we make sure first?

I really really dislike reactive politics. And I have a really big difficulty respecting reactive politicians. They seem more concerned about looking like they’re solving a problem than actually solving the problem. And I think that’s pathetic.

I don’t think I’m arrogant. I’m probably pompous though. And I don’t think I know it all, but I tend to be dogmatic.

Maybe there’s no difference, but I like to think there is. I like to think one is egotisitical and holds an inflated sense of self-importance, whereas the other is very confident in their abilities and ideas but understands that there is always someone with a greater skill or better idea.

I know I need to keep working on my active-listening and listening-with-empathy skills, but I really do try. Seems to me, this is the way to temper my confidence and take the negative bite out of my dogmatic pomposity.

Would you like some more money? Does that make you greedy?

Do you feel there’s value in the work you do? Does that make you arrogant?

The letters to the Editor this weekend irritate me for two reasons. First, because the issue of pay increases for councillors seems to be sticking to me. And second, because of the insinuation that serving as an elected official ought to be a volunteer commitment.

For the first, it seems the assumption is that since I’m one of the hardest working councillors and don’t have a ‘real job’, that I must be the one pushing for an increase. And that, since I’ve been quoted in the newspaper explaining the workload of a councillor, I must be trying to justify support for an increase.

For the second, it seems the assumption is that a councillor’s work is for the public good and that to do it well it must be done out of selfless motivation, so therefore payment for time and skills would create a corrupting incentive – Out of concern for the people they serve, public servants should serve without payment.

I don’t even think I should have to defend myself against these assumptions. But I will anyway.

1. I did not bring up the issue of pay increases for councillors. I did not bring it up with other councillors in private, in any meeting, at any time. I did not raise the issue.

2. When asked if I believed the work I do is undervalued by the payment I receive, my answer was “yes”. I explained that when the issue was previously brought up, I opposed an increase. But since then, I have had 3 years experience in the role. It is a lot more work than I had been expecting.

However, in response to the question of whether I would accept an increase, I explained how I felt it inappropriate for councillors to pick a number arbitrarily for themselves – that if some on council want to pursue an increase, it should be a third party with no vested interest who determines what is fair.

3. I was quoted in the newspaper because I am often the most accessible councillor. I am the most likely to answer my phone (I forward by home phone to my cell, which is almost always on) and because I rarely skate around a question. I tend to give straight answers to their questions – which means sometimes I’m more quotable just by virtue of the fact I don’t try to avoid answering their questions. So, don’t shoot the messenger. Just because I’m quoted in the newspaper and I’m not rabidly opposed doesn’t mean I’m the one pushing it.

4. I don’t believe being a politician should be considered a career. However, serving is a big commitment with no routine schedule. The time required fluctuates wildly throughout the year. Many of the issues are complex and carry enormous responsibility. To suggest that people take so much time out of their lives, take time away their paying jobs, laden their minds with intense considerations, change the dynamic of their relationships within the community, make themselves vulnerable to those in the community who make it their hobby to point out and ridicule weaknesses of any public person, …

Yes, this is public service. This is not something people get into for the pay cheque. But at the same time, I didn’t sign up to be a martyr. Though it would be impossible to assign a financial value to the responsibilities, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest I should do it and take all the abuse for free. That’s just insulting. It’s a gross dismissal of the weight of time and effort that goes into doing the job properly. It’s public service, not public slavery.

Some say being a councillor should be done as volunteer work. Some others feel we don’t work hard enough. To both I say, look at my record. Look at the volume of work I did. Look at the amount of time I invested. Look at the range of issues I had to study and learn about. Look at the weight of responsibility that was vested in me. And then consider that this is something that continues throughout the year. I’ve been ongoing non-stop for three years and another three year term is just beginning.

I think it’s totally unreasonable to suggest that this kind of time and responsibility would not have some sort of remuneration.

I achieved things I was told were impossible. I am the councillor who had the most assignments over the past three years, yet I was the only one who’s committees actually met their delegated tasks.

If anybody on council deserves an increase, it’s me. I was quoted in the newspaper explaining the issue, but don’t shoot the messenger. I wasn’t me who brought it up. I wasn’t asking for a raise.

Hands down, no contest. The Bosa team was far more responsive and respectful. They took the time to explain their ideas, then listen – really listen – to feedback. Most of the time that constructive criticism could be seen reflected in revisions. It wasn’t usually exactly what was suggested, but I could see there was real consideration to the concerns or effort to incorporate the principles discussed. Sometimes they offered a fully detailed explanation of why they wouldn’t or couldn’t pursue a suggestion. They honoured the parameters set by the City. They stayed within the limits set by the City’s rules. They engaged fully and clearly demonstrated respect for the community. It certainly makes me feel far more confident in the Bosa team. Hopefully Coast Capital and the Cooperators will take some notes as they watch the Bosa proposal blaze past them.

This afternoon the City’s Advisory Design Panel reviewed the Cooperators proposal for the site along Thrift between Johnston and George.

It was very gratifying to listen to the panel members. They raised all the same issues I was concerned with.

A new and important pieces of information came to light. Until now, I couldn’t understand why they were so incredibly resistant to suggestions that I thought were fairly fundamental.

A few of the main concerns at this point are: how interesting the storefronts are along Johnston; making sure it’s easy to get around for people with wheelchairs or walkers; and the usefulness of the public square.

It turns out, the reason it seems those concerns are not being given the level priority the City wants is that Coast Capital has a conflicting set of priorities. Coast Capital currently has a location on the site and part of their contract in selling its land was that they be guaranteed space in the new building. Where the problems come is that they have a long list of criteria which clash with the City’s standards.

They insist that their customers will want to enter their parking lot from Thrift. But creating a vehicle entrance on Thrift lifts the public square up so that it can’t be seen from the street/sidewalk and can only be accessed by stairs from Thrift.

They want to move into their new location without any disruption to the delivery of service to their customers. But this means that the project must be built in two phases so the parkade must have an entrance from Thrift.

They want the bank to have maximum frontage along Johnston and have everything on the ground level. But this creates the inevitable closed-blind-window walls that makes for a very boring street with no shops along the way.

It seems the impediment to this project moving forward is either a lack of flexibility from Coast Capital.

As a City Councillor, I have to be concerned with the very long term quality of life of White Rock. I have to be concerned with how it will feel to walk along the sidewalks of George, Thrift and Johnston… for the next 50+ years.

If asked whether I care about Coast Capital’s ability to please its customers, the answer is yes, of course. However, if asked what is more important, a temporary inconvenience for Coast Capital customers or the long term viability of the City’s main street – I’m going to say that making Johnston and Thrift more interesting and pleasant places to walk and shop over the next several decades is a far higher priority for me.

Hopefully Coast Capital will step up to a higher standard for this project. It would be very unfortunate for the City and Coast Capital both to miss out on the potential this site offers.

What’s good for the City will be good for Coast Capital, and vice versa.

I attended SFU City Program’s public lecture Thursday March 09 titled “Looking Out to 2031 in Greater Vancouver: Accommodating the next one million residents”.

The feature speaker was Peter Calthorpe, much celebrated urban planner. As introduction, here is an excerpt from an interview of Calthorpe by Scott London, snipped from http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/calthorpe.html

As one of the leading proponents of New Urbanism or Neotraditionalism, Calthorpe has formulated a comprehensive design and planning philosophy aimed not only at curbing urban sprawl and reducing traffic congestion, but also creating more pedestrian-friendly and ecologically sound communities, environments that that promote a sense of connectedness and place. He is the author of Sustainable Communities, The Next American Metropolis, and most recently, The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl (co-authored with William Fulton).

Scott London: In a nutshell, how would you describe good urban design?

Peter Calthorpe: My short and simple answer is that a well-designed city is walkable. It’s a place where your destinations are close enough to walk to and where you feel safe enough to walk. And it’s a place that is interesting enough socially to make you feel that walking is perhaps something more than just getting from point A to point B. I think that is the heart of it.

London: Is it possible to design walkable communities in an age of freeways and strip malls?

Calthorpe: Well, the idea that we can return to mom-and-pop grocery stores is fallacious. But I think we have to find our way back to some of the design principles of the traditional American city. The idea is to create a hybrid between the realities of today and the need for a return to human-scale community.

These are a few notes I managed to catch during his lecture at the Hyatt last Thursday.

–

It’s challenging to get people to think long term. This generation seems to be different – less interested in future generations, just living in the present.

Is people’s investment in the future in decline?

The ethos of the WWI and WWII generations was of making things better for the next generation. This seems to be eroding.

We should be planning 50 years out.

The PRINCIPLES of urban planning:
• diversity and balance

• human and pedestrian scale

• conservation and restoration

• connections and interdependence

These principles need concrete implementation strategies.

For diversity, the more inclusive the better. Fully integrate low income housing with housing for higher incomes.

For pedestrian scale, short blocks encourage pedestrians. Oceans of parking is what results from large blocks (long distances between intersections) since it creates a reliance on the automobile to get around.

Examples of regions that at first weren’t open to new methods of accommodating growth found themselves embracing change as a result of an open and engaging PUBLIC PROCESS.

Make people designers.
• allow people to engage

* let them be the problem solvers

• step up the sophistication

Provide analysis of the alternatives. Show the data that results from each model. For example,
• land area needing to be added to accommodate projected growth if it were to follow current land use patterns;

• breakdown of the mix of housing types achieved with each model.

What will housing demands be in 20 years – for what types of housing?
Despite the belief that Americans aspire to the suburban Single Family home, on average, 1/3 of housing in the States is multi-unit.

There needs to be a mix of housing types to accommodate all phase in life. “Single Family only accommodates one phase.” Planning should provide a “life cycle” housing mix.

To achieve more pedestrian oriented streets, some cities are allowing higher FAR only for mixed use buildings. Also, in areas where 4 storeys mixed use is permitted, developers are allowed to build an extra storey if the project provides 20% of units as affordable housing. It has been very successful with most developers taking advantage of the opportunity.

For low income homes, de-stigmatize their lives through full integration within developments. Do not segregate low income housing.

Build “connector streets instead of collector streets”. Increase the density of the street grid to spread traffic thinner so streets – all streets – are more liveable.

Can we think about, can we care about, 50 years away? How do you manage the relationship between man and nature? Do you care about the next generation?

–

The following were in response to audience questions.

–

In response to my questioning if he was denying the obvious commercial success and market power of the big box centres:

Avoid big box effect while accommodating big box stores. Don’t allow large blocks at arterial intersections – make the street grid a finer grain. incorporate big box stores into smaller blocks, mixed use or blocks with smaller retail shops wrapping the box. force parking to be either underground or on the roof. But all cities in the area have to enforce the same standards, otherwise big boxes will just go where it’s cheaper to build.

In response to a question about his opinion on the Gateway project, he replied that he didn’t know what the Gateway project is, so couldn’t comment on it directly. Throughout his presentation he frequently focused on roads, number of lanes and speed of traffic. Much of his work has been in attempting to minimize the negative impacts of wide, high speed freeways. His advice:

Balance and mix transportation uses. Sometimes there is a need to blend both freeway expansion and increased transit.

On controlling congestion:

Constrain parking – limit available parking spaces and make parking expensive so that the market will control traffic. People will choose to not drive their cars if they know it will be hard to find a space to park and expensive if they do. Of course, this assumes there are transit alternatives in place. In San Francisco, there are zero parking spots required in some new developments.

In response to a question about the place for nature in cities and viability of green roofs:

Mayor Jackson reported a plan in Delta to achieve a 40% urban canopy by planting 2010X100 trees by 2010.

Calthorpe suggested these issues should be planned and enforced regionally – that the new LRSP could be a new set of standards, for street trees, block size, …

In response to a question about growth:

Limiting growth hurts the low income the most. Limiting supply when there is demand results in increased pricing.

In a rant about engineers, traffic engineers in particular, but also specialized professional disciplines in general:

Don’t forget about the full range of problems – don’t optimize a plan to solve one problem. Focusing on “one dimension of the problem” might create more of a problem than gets solved.

Plan for multi-modal transportation systems – the more modes of transportation, the more resilient the city. Robustness and redundancy builds capacity, supports more pedestrian oriented streets, and helps cities respond and evolve with changing trends, needs or circumstances.

On whether neighbourhoods would be safer with quiet cul-de-sacs separate from busy arterials:

“When you separate the person from the street, the street becomes a utility for the car” and becomes unsafe and undesirable for people.

In the planning process, asking and answering these questions will build public support and/or improve the proposed plan.
What are the consequences of the alternatives?
What are the outcomes of the proposal… and its options?

On a question about North American “car culture”:

“If you really want to have an impact on travel behaviour”, limit parking.

“You build transit to enable pedestrian activity not as an alternative to the car.” To be encouraged to use transit, you “need to arrive in a pedestrian friendly place… and should probably start from a pedestrian friendly place.”
“Transit is a pedestrian enhancer.”

In response to a question about the trend of neo-classical architecture:

Buildings of the 1830′s are still standing and performing well while those from the end of the 20th century are failing. “We need to be wise enough to look to our traditions and history.”

In response to a comment that the real problem is our cannibalistic, capitalist system fuelled by greed that needs growth in order to survive, and therefore doomed for failure and ensuring imminent destruction of the Earth as a habitable planet:

“We need growth as an economic engine to repair mistakes from over the past 50 years.” There has been a lot of damage done over the past 50 years, but growth creates an opportunity to fix that damage.

In response to a question about how high rises fit with the principle of human scale:

“Human scale isn’t about size, it’s about texture, activity, windows on the street … Human scale is not about size.”
[He listed several qualities. These were the only ones I caught as I was writing. I'm going to try and find out if anyone else caught it, because it was brilliant.]

I made a News Year’s resolution to keep a journal.

Our perceptions change with our experiences. Everything we learn influences our assumptions. Those assumptions shape our expectations.

Just for myself, I’d like to have a record of how my world evolves. But I’ve decided to keep this journal public on the internet so that White Rock citizens can learn with me, better understand why I do the things I do and make the decisions I make.

I’m hoping this will encourage more thoughtful discussions on issues in the city. Sharing my thoughts, assumptions and expectations, I’m hoping to engage you in more open dialogue.

I have been learning a lot the past three years as a City Councillor. The past two months has been especially interesting. I’ve attended a series of lectures by people who try to put ethereal and abstract philosophical ideals into real and tangible practice – what does a “comfortable” city look like?

These are interesting minds. I’m hoping to share what I learn from them with you.

In this journal I expect I will be talking about democracy and urban planning – theory and the application of principles.

I chose the name “pursuit of idyll minds” because I like how there so many ways to interpret the phrase: Motivated visionaries or lazy dreamers, pursuing or being pursued? You decide.

Share your thoughts in the pursuit of idyll minds.