Grass-roots group is loosely organized, but not `sneaky' Jan Karon DPPA member Point Of View - Duluth News Tribune - Oct. 1 2000 Concerning your Wednesday editorial, headlined ``Change council meetings'': Here's some background of events proceeding last Monday's Duluth City Council meeting and the motion to reconsider variances for the proposed motel on Park Point. Following the City Council decision of Sept. 11 approving two variances for the proposed motel, concerned citizens on Park Point were told that if they did not raise the issue by the next council meeting, it could not be reconsidered. So an informal group of neighbors and friends wrote a detailed fact sheet and a petition regarding its concerns, working many, many hours to inform others about those concerns. After the Sept. 21 Park Point Community Club meeting, one of the developers was given copies of the fact sheet and the petition. Our neighbors, the developers, knew that evening that concerned citizens, who felt very strongly that they had not been heard at the previous meeting, were going back to the City Council. Councilors were e-mailed Saturday, Sept. 23, regarding citizens' concerns. Last Sunday (Sept. 24), a concerned citizen called one of the developers to apologize for not having given the developers special notice about an earlier community meeting regarding the proposed motel. Furthermore, I spent several hours walking and talking with another of the developers last Sunday. We discussed the issues involved and looked at the site together. It's kind of strange, but here I thought that I was involved in a sincere grass-roots gathering of friends and neighbors who shared concerns about a proposed project in our neighborhood. Our efforts have been labeled as an ``unfair, sneaky campaign.'' One reason for that label is that there seem to be several ways to bring issues before the City Council. One is to get an item on the agenda. Then it is public information. Another is to come to a meeting and sign up to speak about an issue -- in that case the public is not forewarned that an issue will arise. Our group chose the latter process. Does that mean, given all the above communications, that our actions were ``sneaky''? Yes, we worked together. If you don't like our opinion, labeling it negatively as ``orchestrated'' certainly is one way to take the focus away from the issues. Unfortunately, we were hardly organized, much less orchestrated. Had we been either of those, the petition we wanted to bring to the City Council would have been much more widely circulated, and we might have been able to deliver it to the council. We didn't. As citizens we tried to use the council process to get a reconsideration of the issue. To state that we tried to ``twist arms'' is more than just a choice of language; it is clearly degrading. Finally, since when is grass-roots organizing a crime? To some there seems to be no difference between ``orchestration of action outside the usual legal process'' and a concerted effort by a group of people who chose to use the City Council process to be heard. (Whether the council process needs to be changed is another question.) The editorial said that council members, city staff, project proposers and the public were not given the proper public notice... As is obvious from our activities of the previous week described above, what is true is that because of the legitimate City Council process that we used, the public did not know that this item was on the agenda. That's not good, but, again, that is current council procedure. To call the appearance of these citizens at a City Council ``hand-wringing'' is just another way to put down the efforts of concerned citizens. To blame concerned citizens for putting a project through this ``rigmarole'' is further insult. Why all these personal accusations, half-truths and insults -- not just from a city councilor, but then repeated in an editorial? I suggest that sticking to the issues is much more productive than denigrating those who disagree with you. But minimally, before denigrating in public your constituents and readers, perhaps some attempt to hear the other side of the story is in order. But then, now you've heard it. In the end, although the council did vote to reaffirm its previous decision, it also heard the repeated and reasonable concerns of a group of citizens, and, significantly, chose to act on them. I appreciate that Councilor Ken Hogg offered to bring to the next City Council meeting a resolution proposing a traffic study relevant to the location of this motel. We appreciate the efforts of all who helped to accomplish this. Karon is a resident of Park Point and part of a group who opposed the South Pier Inn motel development. These articles are retained on the web for historical interest and do not necessarily reflect the views or goals of DPPA today.

[Index] [Previous article] [Next article]