We cannot change unless we survive, but we will not survive unless we change.
The tag line of this web-log says it all, and it is about time that we begin to take it seriously. We can rest with the doomsdays who tell us all about the region’s “quiet crisis,” or we can rest with those who are forever spouting great designs for the future that have no feet on solid ground. Neither is an acceptable course of action if we are too survive – no, let me rephrase that, the region will survive, although with a diminished quality of life – Neither is an acceptable course of action because the first offers no solutions and the second offers pie-in-the-sky solutions that are too nebulous to do anything with.
There is a third alternative and that’s for those of us in the trenches who DO care about the region’s future to take control of it. We need to stop delegating responsibility and take the responsibility upon ourselves. TeamNEO, BioEnterprises, The Future Fund, and their ilk, can only go so far without our involvement. The reason organizations such as Cleveland Tomorrow and Cleveland Growth, and their ilk, are such dismal failures is because we at the grass-roots allowed personal agendas – big business agendas – status quo agendas – political agendas – to take over through our lack of involvement, and our failure to demand accountability. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
I do not have the exact answers for change, but we can find them together. And, if enough of us come together we can force the change. I do have one suggestion, let’s use the Internet to discuss changes necessary, and how to make these changes happen. Let’s use the power of the Internet to forge an alliance of like minds rising out of the trenches to bring about change in Northeast Ohio.
Please join with me to change NEO by posting your ideas right here at GREAT AGA!N. Feel free to start new threads if you wish.
The tag line of this web-log says it all, and it is about time that we begin to take it seriously. We can rest with the doomsdays who tell us all about the region’s “quiet crisis,” or we can rest with those who are forever spouting great designs for the future that have no feet on solid ground. Neither is an acceptable course of action if we are too survive – no, let me rephrase that, the region will survive, although with a diminished quality of life – Neither is an acceptable course of action because the first offers no solutions and the second offers pie-in-the-sky solutions that are too nebulous to do anything with.
There is a third alternative and that’s for those of us in the trenches who DO care about the region’s future to take control of it. We need to stop delegating responsibility and take the responsibility upon ourselves. TeamNEO, BioEnterprises, The Future Fund, and their ilk, can only go so far without our involvement. The reason organizations such as Cleveland Tomorrow and Cleveland Growth, and their ilk, are such dismal failures is because we at the grass-roots allowed personal agendas – big business agendas – status quo agendas – political agendas – to take over through our lack of involvement, and our failure to demand accountability. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
I do not have the exact answers for change, but we can find them together. And, if enough of us come together we can force the change. I do have one suggestion, let’s use the Internet to discuss changes necessary, and how to make these changes happen. Let’s use the power of the Internet to forge an alliance of like minds rising out of the trenches to bring about change in Northeast Ohio.
Please join with me to change NEO by posting your ideas right here at GREAT AGA!N. Feel free to start new threads if you wish.
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
-
Re: Taking Control
Mon, March 1, 2004 - 10:06 AMmaking a change begins at home, where did I put that vaccum cleaner?
~brian~ -
-
Unsu...
From Mary Beth
Tue, March 2, 2004 - 4:55 PM
In order to spark ideas that will ignite the rebirth of this city as a vital cultural and economic center, it may be helpful to identify areas of need to focus on.
If the corporate sponsored agencies have failed to develop a workable plan toward these goals, it would be useful to examine their planning process so that the same mistakes aren’t repeated . Rather than vilifying these organizations, they may be useful as stepping stones. What did these agencies perceive as the problem(s)? Is their perception different from that of the “grassroots” community?
I am certain research was done by some of these agencies in the form of polls and surveys. These would be interesting to read if they are still available. Would the results still be valid? Who was surveyed?
How were their plans developed? Did they start with a wish list as opposed to building on a plan based on real factors? Was a ‘devils advocate’ employed throughout the planning process to anticipate problems?
In order to take on any challenge, one has to ask a lot of questions. These are just the first few that came to my mind, and that I had the time to write out. There will be many more…trust me.
mb
“ The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly.”
Richard Bach -
-
Unsu...
My questions for Mary Beth
Tue, March 2, 2004 - 5:28 PMNow my questions:
>In order to spark ideas that will ignite the rebirth of this city as a vital cultural and >economic center, it may be helpful to identify areas of need to focus on.
How do we accomplish this when many of those who are saying this or that area needs are attention have personal (business?) agendas? What process would best work to keep the agendas low key?
Actually, I have nothing against agendas -- we all have them, myself included -- but what I do have a problem with are those who will not fess up to their agendas and try to get to believe that it flows from the goodness of their heart.
Then there are those who when they don't get their agendas met, decide to spite the region by doing all of their new projects elsewhere. How do we keep feathers from being ruffled, especially when those having their feathers ruffled are the ones with the financial wherewithal to do something?
If the corporate sponsored agencies have failed to develop a workable plan
toward these goals, it would be useful to examine their planning process
so that the same mistakes aren't repeated. Rather than vilifying these
organizations, they may be useful as stepping stones.
It is hard, in my mind, to use the 'old agencies' as stepping stone when (1) they have been the problem, and (2) they refuse to be used. All one has to do is to see who gets picked to serve on these agencies to see the truth of this. They are pretty much locked down to grassroots outsider. My question: So how does the 'outsider' become an insider?
What did these agencies perceive as the problem(s)? Is their perception different from
that of the “grassroots” community?
The more pertinent question in my mind, is did these agencies even bother to try to see what was important at the grassroots? And if they did, did they actually understand what they were seeing/hearing? And if they did, then why do they insist on going ahead with their own agenda? The convention center fiasco to the point: From the very beginning the scuttle at the grassroots level was that it wouldn't fly, yet they kept on pushing it until it became a fiasco. Or Mayor Campbell's plan to build high-end condos on the lake. They're probably needed, but from the backlash she's getting she certainly wasn't listening to city when she proposed them. If she was, at the very least, she would have proposed them in a different manner.
I am certain research was done by some of these agencies in the form of
polls and surveys. These would be interesting to read if they are still
available. Would the results still be valid? Who was surveyed?
Surveys and focus groups can be, and are, greatly manipulated. I know, because I know how to do it. All of the polls I saw, as well as the focus groups that were conducted, asked very directed questions. In fact I just finished watching an entire series of focus groups about regionalism on video tape. (In this particular case, the desired outcome was beneficial, nevertheless, it was directed.) The questions were very directed toward a desired outcome. The question is, why do we need to set desired outcomes beforehand? Why not simply ask people to say whatever it is that they want to say?
How were their plans developed? Did they start with a wish list as
opposed to building on a plan based on real factors?
From my observations, some of it from within the process, the supposed needs came from agendas, e.g., "I need to bail out my failing Tower City." Nothing wrong with this, except that it was denied as a motivation over and over again. This is only one example. One of these private agendas might even be good for the city and region, but we need to be upfront about motivations. Things have been in back rooms done far too long and too often in this city, resulting in a lack of trust.
Was a ‘devils advocate’ employed throughout the planning process to anticipate problems?
I asked this question of several people and as the answers given were evasive I would say no. If it was, the Devil's Advocate's opinions were never made known. That is not to say that there were not those people who played devil's advocate, but they were outsiders who had no input. So how do we force such a process upon the powers-that-be?
What about the rest of you? share your thoughts with us, please.
F.
-
-
-
Re: Taking Control
Wed, March 10, 2004 - 3:28 PMThat message above is for the lame vacuum cleaner joke from brian not you Frank!!
-
-
