Chapel Hill 2020: Ambiguity Moving Forward

          On October 6, 2011, approximately 200 members of the community gathered at East Chapel Hill High School to participate in a “stakeholder meeting,” the second scheduled event in a series of events associated with the drafting of the Chapel Hill 2020 comprehensive plan. Equipped with high-tech voting devices and packets outlining the various proposed mission statements and themes for the plan, citizens expressed both support and concerns alike through the press of a button.

Some, myself included, left feeling a sense of disappointment that citizens in attendance had been given little opportunity to verbally articulate their frustrations in any sort of forum-like fashion. Even more, I asked myself what each of the plan’s proposed provisions really encompassed. As a student of sociology and activist for marginalized people, the ambiguity and overtly positive spin on the plan is worrisome.

In all fairness to the Chapel Hill 2020 planning committee, the lobby of the school was turned into a physical forum where in which citizens were encouraged to post, via post-it note, concerns, thoughts, and additions to large prints of the various “theme” areas and proposed mission statements under discussion. Under each theme’s banner, words aggregated from the previous 2020 kickoff meeting were displayed in color and shed some glimmer of light onto what citizens feel these broad areas should focus on.

In greeting the crowd, George Cianciolo emphasized the importance of community participation in the planning process.

“Themes are areas we think people will be working in as we go forward,” Cianciolo said. “This is a process that is going to be continuously evolving…But, it is important to remember that this is a draft. We need you to continue to send us your thoughts and comments.”

But, what was missed on Thursday was a real interchange of ideas and perspectives. With a majority of the scheduled 2020 meetings set for week-day evenings, I wonder if the entire community is really getting its fair shot at contributing to the process. As a student, I certainly would not have heard Cianciolo’s rallying cry for participation from the hustle-and-bustle of UNC-CH’s Davis Library.

Surely, the working men and women with children at home are disadvantaged in this contribution process. Many certainly struggle to find the time in the evenings away from work to attend these events. As a result, the current themes sadly mirror the lack of diversity present. What’s worse is that many of the themes are too vague to draw real conclusions about whom or what each affects.

For an example, the language of one of the themes (focusing on issues of diversity) really fails to articulate what the tangible focus will be. The seventh of eight themes, with 23 percent of the audience expressing minor concerns during a live voting session Thursday, reads:

“A place for everyone: public safety and diversity (youth, teens, safe places, a  welcoming community)”

         Sure, everyone wants to say they live in a “welcoming community.” But, in truth, what does this mean from the perspective of the future Town Council? Who defines what “welcoming” looks like and what can the Council do to force communities to begin to welcome and work with one another when issues of class status and race are so closely linked?

         Where is textual reference to communities of color? Where was the language about human rights, the LGBTIQ community, and women? There was none, explicitly at least.

         The themes use language throughout that made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. What is a “safe place?” What is an “asset,” and who in this process defines what is deemed valuable in our community?

         My hope is that, as the planning meetings continue and the process moves forward towards a workable draft, more citizen stakeholders will have the chance to directly comment on the plan. But, this might require leaders heading out into the community in a more comprehensive and creative sense.

        The current text, while highlighting broad areas of concern, says little about the programmatic direction the Town Council will (or should) take. And, in the end, we are left with a fluffy rough draft of articulated hope and positivity with little grit or honesty about the problems we face. I am eager to see how the plan will take shape in the weeks to come. I want to know what will be said (or not said) about the disadvantaged communities in Chapel Hill with low rates of participation who, perhaps in truth, have the most at stake in this process.