Thursday, October 8, 2015
Agree to Disagree
Or, as the late Rodney King famously asked, "why can't we all just get along?"
What seems to happen to us all too often is that we take positions, we become entrenched, and we become embattled. And the problem is not just that we don't see things the same way. It's more than expected that that would happen. The problem is that we have no mutual understanding. One of us doesn't just disagree with another of us. One of us rejects the other of us. One of us has no idea what the other of us is talking about. And doesn't care.
Battle lines seem to get drawn before there's anything about which to disagree. An idea is unacceptable, or stupid, or toxic, or sabotaging, because of whose idea it is. In that sense, every issue is an ad hominem issue.
Really, who cares about the dais? Suppose a dais cost $24K, and suppose it lasted 48 years. That's $500 a year for the dais. That's less than 1/2 cent per house per year. So what's the issue? That we could have gotten a dais for $12K, and it would have cost $250 a year? So instead of my paying, or your paying, less than 1/2 cent per year, we could have paid less than 1/4 cent per year? Really? BP resident Gavin McKenzie could make that dais, or BP resident Charlie Easton could. Yeah, and?
In whose interest is it for Charlie Easton to build a dais, instead of for Gavin McKenzie to build one? Certainly not Charlie Easton's. The offer was that he would build it for free: he would volunteer his time and labor, and that of some others of our neighbors. When George W Bush ran for president, there were people who advocated for "ABB:" Anybody But Bush. The current effort to avoid the plan that includes Gavin McKenzie is a lot like that. The proposed dais is too expensive. It should be made movable (read more expensive), despite the fact that there is no reason to think anyone would ever want to move it. (And amazingly, it's generally the same people who complain about the expense, and insist on making the dais movable.) It should be made of some other wood than the one planned. Any other wood. We can adorn our "magical" newly renovated log cabin with a dais still composed of plastic folding card tables finished with Velcro-attached nylon skirting. Anything on earth but what was proposed.
It's not about anything. It's just fussing. And it's really two problems. One is the blind, ad hominem squabbling. The other is the refusal on either side to comprehend the interests of the other side. That's not to say that if either partisan understood the interests of the other partisan, they wouldn't disagree. They probably would. But it would be an honest disagreement, about real matters of philosophy. Or particular interests. But it's very different if anyone can say of someone else, I understand where you're coming from, but the other consideration seems more important to me. Fair enough. I wouldn't quarrel with anyone who just disagreed with me, as long as I knew they understood my position.
Last Tuesday night, at the Commission meeting, someone from 5th Avenue got mad at me. Actually, it was more than one person, and they got mad at me before the meeting began. It's very possible that one of the reasons they came to the meeting, which neither of them ever does, was to let me know how angry they were at me.
You know about the incident at 5th Avenue and 121st Street, about a week ago. Someone from the CNM side of the street was arguing with someone else from there, and shots were fired. One of the combatants fled down 5th Avenue in his car, and the other combatant shot at him while he was fleeing. Fired shots clearly terrified BP neighbors, and one even struck the truck of a workman parked on 5th Avenue.
Two of those neighbors wrote to the Commissioners, not only to inform us of the matter (as if we hadn't heard all about it), but to let us know how insistent they were that something be done. The preferred something was closure of the 121st Street median, the opening in which created the get-away path used by the fleeing and shot-at driver from CNM. And two correspondents added an incentive for the Village and its Commissioners: we were now alerted, and if we don't somehow make something happen, quickly, any subsequent event, endangering and terrifying BP residents, will be our fault. We will bear legal responsibility. One of the writers made sure to point out he is an attorney.
I wrote back to these neighbors, some of whom I know, and some of whom I don't, to tell them that we all knew about this episode, that it would of course be taken very seriously and attended to in any way we could address it, but that it didn't do good for BP residents to threaten the Village. What I got back immediately was a confrontation that neighbors had not threatened the Village. What I got back at the Commission meeting was being glared at and addressed (dressed down), for how wrong I was to have said these neighbors threatened the Village, and for clearly having no understanding, let alone empathy, about the matter.
In the lobby, during the interval, I approached one of the people who was so mad at me. I hadn't actually ever met nor seen him before, so I introduced myself and tried to smooth things over. He was having none of it. I said "I get it." He said he had no reason to think so. I pointed out I live on 119th Street, which has plenty of its own traffic issues, but he was not one bit assuaged. He was sure I didn't understand his problem, since I wasn't enraged and swearing guaranteed and relatively expeditious correction. It seemed clear he had neither understanding nor patience for the Village's dilemma-- we can't close the median, even if we agree it's the right thing to do, without cooperation from CNM, and there are reasons to think they are not in the mood to be cooperative with us.
These kinds of hostile stand-offs have become increasingly frequent in the Village. I moved here in 2005, and there was already an established group of residents who occasionally threatened to sue the Village for one thing or another. They have receded, but they have been replaced by another group, who either identify problems, or they invent them, and they threaten the Village with one thing or another. Sometimes, it's as simple and routine as threatening Commissioners with being overturned at the next election. Sometimes, it's a more energetic and concerted recall of them. And it's always the accusation that they fail to understand and accede to the "will of the people." (On one occasion, it was even suggested that if Commissioners or the Manager advocated for a new direction about something, the clear explanation was that they were taking graft. Yup.)
Even if we subtract the invented controversies, there will always be disagreement among people. It's anticipated, it's understood, and it's often even advantageous. But there doesn't have to be a portrayal of injury, when there is disagreement, and when one person's position has to give way to another's. Can't we just agree to disagree?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For the record, it was Barbara Watts who stimulated Charlie Easton's offer to build us a dais. Barbara is to be commended for a kind of creativity. For whatever were her reasons, she wanted the dais to be movable. She also complained about the price we were quoted by McKenzie, even after he discounted it. So she found a kind of solution: she got Charlie Easton to agree to build us a dais for little money (cost of materials only), and he would make it movable. This was a good solution.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem was that Charlie was not vetted the way Gavin was, and there were some legal and liability issues we could not reassuringly resolve, if we gave the job to Charlie. It was also ultimately not clear how much it would cost to have Charlie build the dais, if we didn't use Australian Pine, which was Barbara's proposal. And whatever wood we use, Charlie doesn't mill it, so there would be an extra cost for that.
But assuming, for purpose of discussion, that Barbara's intention was not simply to buck whatever was the proposed plan (the equivalent of "ABB"), she offered an interesting compromise. It just wasn't considered reliable enough by a majority of her colleagues.
Fred
Hi Fred,
ReplyDeleteMy issue with the dais is the same as many other people. It is not about the money, but the design.
We are now using a dais where the it is raised to make it easier to see the commissioners.The podium where residents speak from is at an angle so the audience can see the speakers.
Both of these elements work well and have so for years but were totally ignored in the new design.
It is not about the money.....Suppose we build the dais and after a few months it does not work well.
It has been suggested, by the admin that the log cabin will be rented out and have many uses. If so, the layout, needs to be as flexible as possible.
The 5th Ave incident.
One of the residents wrote to the entire commission and others. His letter was borne of years of frustration with the village
not addressing the underlying problem. Residents were upset at you because of your letter. His letter only need to be answered by the manger, which it was. Personally I did not like the tone of 2 of the letters responding to the resident.
My wife, who is much smarter than I am, said what will answering those letters accomplish?
There are items that come before the commission that seem to take on a life of their own. The items don't make sense
but the feeling is we have to act on them for some reason. Misworded, convoluted and very confusing code revisions spring to mind. The review board does not even agree and what was proposed. The commission keeps sending them back to review, without guidance and is amaze that what come back is not what they want. Maybe someone else needs to look at them.
We have passed some that cannot even be enforced because no one can agree on what they mean. Pod code is one.
Both sides have to listen and answers have to be based on fact.
Harvey Bilt
Thanks, Harvey.
ReplyDeleteYou are arguing that the dais should be raised, and your reasoning is understandable. At the same time, some of your neighbors characterize the proposed dais, which is to be a floor level, as a "throne." It seems they would very much disapprove of a raised dais, although three of them have been Commissioners behind one. They weren't complaining then. So again, it's not clear that their complaint is as coherent and genuine as is your instinct.
Be careful to whom you say "it is not the money." For some, if they can be believed, it is very much the money.
As for movability of the dais, it is hard to think of any proposed use that will not be able to use, and even need, a head table, speakers' table, panelists' table, or display table. I still say that a dais will never be moved. But that's just my guess.
I assume you mean you did not like my tone. I have no argument with that. I was offended and probably defensive to have gotten the challenges we received. And I don't quarrel with anyone who criticizes my style of responding. What I do have a quarrel with is the insistence that the letters the Commission and management got were not threatening. They most certainly were. I apologized for being pointed in my response, and I would appreciate it if those who sent the letters had enough insight and enough humility to apologize for the threats they sent. Then, we understand each other. We will still struggle with how to proceed, and what are our options. But there is no reason for us not to be on the same team.
Yes, it gets even worse when the issues are ambiguous.
Fred
I am not arguing that the dais be raise. What I meant was a raised dais is working for us now, so why change it without testing a non raised dais. We have that option.
ReplyDeleteMaybe from a legal point of view, the Village has to be told, "it is on notice" that a problem safety wise exists. I am not attorney so I don't know.