Sent: Tuesday, Mar 11, 2003
Subject: Recap of Today's public hearing
Dear NVLSA members and friends:
The Stream Setback hearing was continued again, this time until April 8. It now seems clear that all four Supervisors will vote for the ordinance as currently written, unless by some miracle all the major stakeholders reach consensus on some alternate solution prior to that date.
In a short meeting between Mark Luce, Bill Dodd, Jeff Jaeger, Doug Hill, Mike Rodrigues and myself, Mike and I asked for a continuance in order to have time to try to find some common ground that we, the Ag coalition, and Sierra Club may share. During the public hearing, several other people also spoke in favor of a continuance, including Jeffrey Warren and Chris Malan. In the end, Brad Wagenknecht, Mike Rippey, and Mark Luce voted for the continuance, and Bill Dodd voted no.
It may not be clear exactly who the major stakeholders are, but I like Dennis Bowker's definition: "anyone who thinks he is". In fact I liked Dennis Bowker's entire presentation at yesterday's Stewardship meeting at the library, and I think he would be an excellent mediator of an exploratory discussion among all the major stakeholders in the Stream Setback debate. I think he has the skills necessary to draw out every participant's real objectives in order to identify any common ground that may exist, I think he could prevent the meeting from generating into a shouting match, and I think he has a clear understanding of all the issues. To me, he seems perfectly suited, but I do not know if he would be willing to do it, or if he would be acceptable to the other stakeholders.
I think we should make every effort to get back onto a more productive course. As it stands now, all the stakeholder groups are at each other's throats. Everyone is talking and no one is listening. Each group thinks it knows what it needs, and what threats it faces, and is maneuvering to gain the upper hand, but no group seems to really understand what the other groups need, or whether there might be some way to get along. Each group is probably operating under some erroneous assumptions regarding the other groups' goals and intentions.
It is no wonder that we all oppose each other, and that the Supervisors are so frustrated at their inability to straighten out this mess. It has degenerated into a political struggle, and all talk now is of political strategy and not a single word is being said about what is good for the watershed or for each stakeholder's real underlying interests. The only possible way to straighten this out is through an honest dialogue, professionally mediated, with all issues on the table, no hidden agendas, no secret strategies. To this end, we are contacting the other known stakeholders to suggest just such a meeting. We think our chances are slim, and a very frustrated Bill Dodd thinks our chances are zero, but we must not miss any opportunity that might exist.
We will leave our political weapons at the door. If we fail, and it degenerates into a disaster, then NVLSA will still have its referendum, Chris Malan will still have her initiative, and the Ag coalition will still have its initiative. And in the end, we will all still be able to spend our energies on making sure none of the other groups can succeed. But wouldn't it be nice to do something constructive for a change?
Please forward this memo to anyone you think might be interested.
Sincerely,
George Bachich, NVLSA chairman