Common passion and common language are the roots anchoring the tree of “community”. A common passion is a powerful bond, for even without a common language, a Bulgarian cattleman and a rancher from Manyberries can share their appreciation for a top-notch bull. Common language opens the door to greater understanding. A Leduc teenager and an English-speaking senior from Thailand can readily build bridges of common interest.
The real magic happens when a common passion is expressed in a common language. Common language articulating the shared passion sharpens the sense of “community” and deepens the linkage. That makes the gifted souls who can articulate the passions, pains and perplexities of a community in a common ‘voice” incredibly important.
Why? They give voice and credibility to a community’s values. With their use of words- spoken, written and in song, they capture a community’s essence.
Alberta singer-songwriter Corb Lund is one of those gifted souls. His songs capture the fundamental nature of the joy and angst of his community- the ranchers, roughnecks, and mavericks of rural western Canada.
Part of Corb Lund’s genius comes in his use of the everyday language spoken by his community, as his lyrics are or become part of their speech patterns. Who in rural Alberta hasn’t heard the phrase “Mighty neighborly- mighhhhty neighborly” used in kitchen or bar table conversations? While the phrase has been around since John Deere wore steel shoes, Corb Lund’s song, “The Truck Got Stuck” song, fixed it for generations in the community vernacular of rural western Canada.
I’ve been a fan of Corb Lund’s for quite a while. He speaks of the life I’ve known- unspoiled landscapes and good horses, vet clinics and ranch wrecks and bullzipping at the crossroads with a neighbor. That’s why I eagerly bought his latest CD, “Losing Lately Gambler” and slipped it into the CD player to have a listen.
When the last song ended, I sat in awed silence. If I had been wearing a hat, I would have taken it off in respect. One song in particular, “This Is My Prairie”, brought tears to my eyes. Every Albertan who gives a damn about the prairie landscape should listen to this song.
I know that I’m a good writer. My informal writer’s “voice” comes from who I am and where I come from. Two national awards for writing for rural audiences proudly hang on my office wall. I know that for my community and for my money, Corb Lund is the best writer – prose or song- working in Western Canada today. He is our community voice, and its’ scribe. I salute him.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Strength Through Diversity
Nature teaches us simple yet powerful life lessons. These lessons are so potent that their implications apply to the broad spectrum of human existence.
Yesterday I received a chain e-mail that reminded me of one of nature’s lessons. This little gem was one of the thinly disguised anti-immigrant rants currently floating around cyberspace like bad breath.
Some Canadians fear that “the others” – immigrants to Canada- are overwhelming and changing Canadian society. It appears that those immigrants who are non-Caucasian and non-Christian are of special concern. The writers of these messages appear deeply troubled by the fear that Canada may become a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society.
Yet anyone who has lived close to Nature will tell you that she performs poorly in monocultures and thrives in diversity. In plant and animal communities, genetic diversity is the best possible insurance against catastrophe.
It is no different in human communities. Diversity gives societies and cultures a richness and strength that builds enduring civilizations.
In today’s world, that community diversity is inevitable. Spend some time in a shopping center and take note of the multiracial young couples you observe. Many of today’s young people do not see racial or religious differences as impediments to relationships. This cross-cultural intermingling is the bridge across which tomorrow’s Canadian identity will pass.
Yet there are good reasons for frustration with the outcomes of recent Canadian immigration policies, for those policies have not always worked in our best national interests. It is important to review what has historically worked and what has not worked in terms of immigrant absorption into Canadian society.
One of the best examples of successful immigration absorption was the immigrant settlement of western Canada at the dawn of the 20th century- the western Canadian pioneers. Many thousands of new Canadians from all over the world came together to fulfill old dreams and build new lives. Today, the success of that experiment is obvious across western Canada.
Contrast that success with the sprawling urban immigrant ghettos in our major cities that often trap new Canadians in social and economic isolation. The walls separating these immigrants from mainstream Canadian society are hard to scale. Sadly, many of their own leaders have strong interests in preserving the status quo.
There is a huge social and economic benefit to ending that status quo. We need immigrants, for Canada urgently requires labor for its depleting work force. The economic and social diversity we will gain from these new Canadians will add huge value to our social and economic bottom line.
All Canadians, no matter their age or faith or culture, have an interest in breaking down the walls of separation and harvesting that social diversity. Let’s hit the “Delete” button on those toxic emails and then “Send” the hand of friendship to new immigrants- wherever they may come from.
Yesterday I received a chain e-mail that reminded me of one of nature’s lessons. This little gem was one of the thinly disguised anti-immigrant rants currently floating around cyberspace like bad breath.
Some Canadians fear that “the others” – immigrants to Canada- are overwhelming and changing Canadian society. It appears that those immigrants who are non-Caucasian and non-Christian are of special concern. The writers of these messages appear deeply troubled by the fear that Canada may become a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society.
Yet anyone who has lived close to Nature will tell you that she performs poorly in monocultures and thrives in diversity. In plant and animal communities, genetic diversity is the best possible insurance against catastrophe.
It is no different in human communities. Diversity gives societies and cultures a richness and strength that builds enduring civilizations.
In today’s world, that community diversity is inevitable. Spend some time in a shopping center and take note of the multiracial young couples you observe. Many of today’s young people do not see racial or religious differences as impediments to relationships. This cross-cultural intermingling is the bridge across which tomorrow’s Canadian identity will pass.
Yet there are good reasons for frustration with the outcomes of recent Canadian immigration policies, for those policies have not always worked in our best national interests. It is important to review what has historically worked and what has not worked in terms of immigrant absorption into Canadian society.
One of the best examples of successful immigration absorption was the immigrant settlement of western Canada at the dawn of the 20th century- the western Canadian pioneers. Many thousands of new Canadians from all over the world came together to fulfill old dreams and build new lives. Today, the success of that experiment is obvious across western Canada.
Contrast that success with the sprawling urban immigrant ghettos in our major cities that often trap new Canadians in social and economic isolation. The walls separating these immigrants from mainstream Canadian society are hard to scale. Sadly, many of their own leaders have strong interests in preserving the status quo.
There is a huge social and economic benefit to ending that status quo. We need immigrants, for Canada urgently requires labor for its depleting work force. The economic and social diversity we will gain from these new Canadians will add huge value to our social and economic bottom line.
All Canadians, no matter their age or faith or culture, have an interest in breaking down the walls of separation and harvesting that social diversity. Let’s hit the “Delete” button on those toxic emails and then “Send” the hand of friendship to new immigrants- wherever they may come from.
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Clock Is Ticking
It’s less than a year before the next municipal election, and the clock is ticking. A majority of Albertans will once again have their triannual opportunity to ignore their democratic right to vote for their community’s political leaders. A minority of Albertans will once again exercise that democratic right and cast their ballot. And there is a wee tiny slice of that minority who will actually considering running for their local Councils.
It’s a tough decision to make, for local politics is a very tough game. There is no other form of politics as close to the day-to-day lives of constituents. If one can survive and succeed as a Councilor, you can survive and succeed in most political arenas.
It’s even tougher here in Alberta, where we continue our passionate obsession with “Strong Leadership”. Peter Block, in his marvelous book, “Community: The Structure of Belonging”, talks about what happens when all that counts is what leaders do. The effect is to let citizens off the hook and breeds feelings of citizen dependency and entitlement. Why would any busy Albertan spend time or energy on voting when the folks who do get involved will elect a strong leader and we can snooze for the next three years? Wouldn’t we better spend our time shopping or papering our Facebook walls?
We don’t even think much about the definition of “strong leadership”. Is a “Strong Leader” a person who is “one of us”- the kind of guy or gal with whom we’d share a few beers? Could someone with extensive education or experience outside the community be trusted to lead a community of “common folks?
Speaking of definitions, does electing a “strong leader” make sense when that leader has to work together with other “strong leaders”? How many Municipal Councils are hamstrung because we elect “strong leaders” who don’t play well in groups?
So how do we find citizens with good credentials who can work together with others to find pragmatic, effective solutions to community problems? How about becoming politically engaged and looking around us for the people we know who fit that description? They may already be Council incumbents, for many Alberta Councillors have those skills. Ask these people to consider running for Council next fall and volunteer to help them with their campaigns.
I know this is radical stuff. Getting engaged in local politics is truly scary for most Albertans. Yet we also know that we get the leaders we deserve. That leads to one final question: If we citizens invest nothing in the political process, what should we expect?
It’s a tough decision to make, for local politics is a very tough game. There is no other form of politics as close to the day-to-day lives of constituents. If one can survive and succeed as a Councilor, you can survive and succeed in most political arenas.
It’s even tougher here in Alberta, where we continue our passionate obsession with “Strong Leadership”. Peter Block, in his marvelous book, “Community: The Structure of Belonging”, talks about what happens when all that counts is what leaders do. The effect is to let citizens off the hook and breeds feelings of citizen dependency and entitlement. Why would any busy Albertan spend time or energy on voting when the folks who do get involved will elect a strong leader and we can snooze for the next three years? Wouldn’t we better spend our time shopping or papering our Facebook walls?
We don’t even think much about the definition of “strong leadership”. Is a “Strong Leader” a person who is “one of us”- the kind of guy or gal with whom we’d share a few beers? Could someone with extensive education or experience outside the community be trusted to lead a community of “common folks?
Speaking of definitions, does electing a “strong leader” make sense when that leader has to work together with other “strong leaders”? How many Municipal Councils are hamstrung because we elect “strong leaders” who don’t play well in groups?
So how do we find citizens with good credentials who can work together with others to find pragmatic, effective solutions to community problems? How about becoming politically engaged and looking around us for the people we know who fit that description? They may already be Council incumbents, for many Alberta Councillors have those skills. Ask these people to consider running for Council next fall and volunteer to help them with their campaigns.
I know this is radical stuff. Getting engaged in local politics is truly scary for most Albertans. Yet we also know that we get the leaders we deserve. That leads to one final question: If we citizens invest nothing in the political process, what should we expect?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Clock Is Ticking
It’s less than a year before the next municipal election, and the clock is ticking. A majority of Albertans will once again have their triannual opportunity to ignore their democratic right to vote for their community’s political leaders. A minority of Albertans will once again exercise that democratic right and cast their ballot. And there is a wee tiny slice of that minority who will actually considering running for their local Councils.
It’s a tough decision to make, for local politics is a very tough game. There is no other form of politics as close to the day-to-day lives of constituents. If one can survive and succeed as a Councilor, you can survive and succeed in most political arenas.
It’s even tougher here in Alberta, where we continue our passionate obsession with “Strong Leadership”. Peter Block, in his marvelous book, “Community: The Structure of Belonging”, talks about what happens when all that counts is what leaders do. The effect is to let citizens off the hook and breeds feelings of citizen dependency and entitlement. Why would any busy Albertan spend time or energy on voting when the folks who do get involved will elect a strong leader and we can snooze for the next three years? Wouldn’t we better spend our time shopping or papering our Facebook walls?
We don’t even think much about the definition of “strong leadership”. Is a “Strong Leader” a person who is “one of us”- the kind of guy or gal with whom we’d share a few beers? Could someone with extensive education or experience outside the community be trusted to lead a community of “common folks?
Speaking of definitions, does electing a “strong leader” make sense when that leader has to work together with other “strong leaders”? How many Municipal Councils are hamstrung because we elect “strong leaders” who don’t play well in groups?
So how do we find citizens with good credentials who can work together with others to find pragmatic, effective solutions to community problems? How about becoming politically engaged and looking around us for the people we know who fit that description? They may already be Council incumbents, for many Alberta Councillors have those skills. Ask these people to consider running for Council next fall and volunteer to help them with their campaigns.
I know this is radical stuff. Getting engaged in local politics is truly scary for most Albertans. Yet we also know that we get the leaders we deserve. That leads to one final question: If we citizens invest nothing in the political process, what should we expect?
It’s a tough decision to make, for local politics is a very tough game. There is no other form of politics as close to the day-to-day lives of constituents. If one can survive and succeed as a Councilor, you can survive and succeed in most political arenas.
It’s even tougher here in Alberta, where we continue our passionate obsession with “Strong Leadership”. Peter Block, in his marvelous book, “Community: The Structure of Belonging”, talks about what happens when all that counts is what leaders do. The effect is to let citizens off the hook and breeds feelings of citizen dependency and entitlement. Why would any busy Albertan spend time or energy on voting when the folks who do get involved will elect a strong leader and we can snooze for the next three years? Wouldn’t we better spend our time shopping or papering our Facebook walls?
We don’t even think much about the definition of “strong leadership”. Is a “Strong Leader” a person who is “one of us”- the kind of guy or gal with whom we’d share a few beers? Could someone with extensive education or experience outside the community be trusted to lead a community of “common folks?
Speaking of definitions, does electing a “strong leader” make sense when that leader has to work together with other “strong leaders”? How many Municipal Councils are hamstrung because we elect “strong leaders” who don’t play well in groups?
So how do we find citizens with good credentials who can work together with others to find pragmatic, effective solutions to community problems? How about becoming politically engaged and looking around us for the people we know who fit that description? They may already be Council incumbents, for many Alberta Councillors have those skills. Ask these people to consider running for Council next fall and volunteer to help them with their campaigns.
I know this is radical stuff. Getting engaged in local politics is truly scary for most Albertans. Yet we also know that we get the leaders we deserve. That leads to one final question: If we citizens invest nothing in the political process, what should we expect?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Playing To Win At Environmental Engagement
Saying that many Canadians consider themselves environmentally conscious is like saying Albertans cheer for a pro hockey team. While we cheer for a team, the colors we wear can be very different. Just like some folks cheer for the Oilers and others for the Flames, local governments in Canada choose very different approaches to engaging with environmental issues.
A proposal to develop a huge waste management facility in Thorhild County, northeast of Edmonton typifies one approach to engaging with environmental issues. The proposed “SuperDump” will receive waste from the City of Edmonton and other sources. On the surface, it’s not the Angelina Jolie of economic development proposals. However, the Company promises local jobs and corporate community involvement, along with a substantial boost to the municipal tax base.
That was enough to win the enthusiastic support of Thorhild County Council. When ratepayers twice challenged the project because of its potential environmental impact, Councilors pointed to the projected economic benefits for the community.
Deeply concerned about potential environmental risks, particularly to the water supply, opponents of the proposed facility corralled 1200 signatures on a petition opposing approval without a complete Environmental Impact Assessment. Since there are approximately 3000 residents in the County, that’s a significant number. Yet Thorhild Council continues to enthusiastically support the proposal.
Community environmental engagement can also see the cards stacked against needed economic activity. A proposed development on Saltspring Island, British Columbia is an excellent example.
Saltspring is a community with a small commercial base primarily dependent upon tourism. Housing is expensive, and good–paying jobs are in short supply. It’s a difficult place to live for lower–income residents.
Some Island-based businesses have prospered. One of those is Saltspring Coffee. It’s one of Canada’s largest and most respected micro-roasters of certified organic, fair-trade, shade-grown, and carbon-neutral coffees.
That ongoing success made business expansion necessary. The company started the application process for building a new plant on Saltspring, promising a strong boost to the Island economy.
However, Saltspringers pride themselves on their sense of environmental responsibility and the proposed expansion quickly ran into rough seas. Local disapproval centered on the environmental impact of the proposed coffee-roasting operation, particularly to air and water quality.
To address these concerns, the company’s proposal underwent several expensive environmental studies. Ultimately, the completed studies validated the company’s strategies to mitigate the environmental impact.
Was Saltspring Coffee’s proposed expansion approved? The member of the Island Trust casting the deciding vote on the proposal said she voted “No” because the proposal was “The thin edge of the development wedge”. That hollow rationale is impossible to quantify and is a huge red flag to anyone planning future investment on Saltspring.
What lessons can we learn from Thorhild County and Saltspring Island? In Thorhild County, it appears that the mantra of economic growth for the sake of economic growth drowns out many voices calling for environmental stewardship. On Saltspring, a reflexive “All economic development is evil” mindset creates a climate that driving away future economic development.
So how can communities avoid the rigidity and dogma that can pervade community engagement on the environment? Communities winning the environmental engagement game will be the ones using the Detroit Red Wings approach to hockey. The Red Wings team culture demands players holding themselves personally accountable and working within a balanced, system-driven approach.
That’s a great model for communities looking for a winning strategy for environmental engagement. Communities implementing planning and approval processes requiring collaborative information gathering, respectful conversation, and community accountability are on the way to successfully engaging environmental issues. They are the kind of community – or hockey team– that anyone can cheer for.
A proposal to develop a huge waste management facility in Thorhild County, northeast of Edmonton typifies one approach to engaging with environmental issues. The proposed “SuperDump” will receive waste from the City of Edmonton and other sources. On the surface, it’s not the Angelina Jolie of economic development proposals. However, the Company promises local jobs and corporate community involvement, along with a substantial boost to the municipal tax base.
That was enough to win the enthusiastic support of Thorhild County Council. When ratepayers twice challenged the project because of its potential environmental impact, Councilors pointed to the projected economic benefits for the community.
Deeply concerned about potential environmental risks, particularly to the water supply, opponents of the proposed facility corralled 1200 signatures on a petition opposing approval without a complete Environmental Impact Assessment. Since there are approximately 3000 residents in the County, that’s a significant number. Yet Thorhild Council continues to enthusiastically support the proposal.
Community environmental engagement can also see the cards stacked against needed economic activity. A proposed development on Saltspring Island, British Columbia is an excellent example.
Saltspring is a community with a small commercial base primarily dependent upon tourism. Housing is expensive, and good–paying jobs are in short supply. It’s a difficult place to live for lower–income residents.
Some Island-based businesses have prospered. One of those is Saltspring Coffee. It’s one of Canada’s largest and most respected micro-roasters of certified organic, fair-trade, shade-grown, and carbon-neutral coffees.
That ongoing success made business expansion necessary. The company started the application process for building a new plant on Saltspring, promising a strong boost to the Island economy.
However, Saltspringers pride themselves on their sense of environmental responsibility and the proposed expansion quickly ran into rough seas. Local disapproval centered on the environmental impact of the proposed coffee-roasting operation, particularly to air and water quality.
To address these concerns, the company’s proposal underwent several expensive environmental studies. Ultimately, the completed studies validated the company’s strategies to mitigate the environmental impact.
Was Saltspring Coffee’s proposed expansion approved? The member of the Island Trust casting the deciding vote on the proposal said she voted “No” because the proposal was “The thin edge of the development wedge”. That hollow rationale is impossible to quantify and is a huge red flag to anyone planning future investment on Saltspring.
What lessons can we learn from Thorhild County and Saltspring Island? In Thorhild County, it appears that the mantra of economic growth for the sake of economic growth drowns out many voices calling for environmental stewardship. On Saltspring, a reflexive “All economic development is evil” mindset creates a climate that driving away future economic development.
So how can communities avoid the rigidity and dogma that can pervade community engagement on the environment? Communities winning the environmental engagement game will be the ones using the Detroit Red Wings approach to hockey. The Red Wings team culture demands players holding themselves personally accountable and working within a balanced, system-driven approach.
That’s a great model for communities looking for a winning strategy for environmental engagement. Communities implementing planning and approval processes requiring collaborative information gathering, respectful conversation, and community accountability are on the way to successfully engaging environmental issues. They are the kind of community – or hockey team– that anyone can cheer for.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Social Side of Community Engagement
Albertans have a curious attitude towards the social element of community life. We talk a lot about the “Alberta way”, irrigating talk-show radio’s arid pastures with verbal cloudbursts extolling the wisdom found in small-town Alberta where “Community comes first.”
Yet reality is often different. When Alberta communities make important public decisions, some see economic gain as the fruit on the tree. Environmental concerns are the potential risks to the tree’s fruit. The social element of a community is the bird that might be enticed to come to sing in the tree.
We are puzzled when boom–time Alberta workers from places like Newfoundland and Saskatchewan make their money and return home. How can they turn their back on Paradise?
Do we have something to learn from Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, where life in socially engaged communities is often quite different? In those communities, the economy is the trunk of the tree providing support and feeding nourishment to the branches. The environmental element is the leaves– the sunlight receptors ensuring vigorous, sustainable growth. Anchoring the tree are the roots –the social elements of community life. All three are essential and interdependent.
Socially–engaged communities endure because of their attributes. Diversity is one of those attributes. Social diversity adds zest and vigor to community life. Yet in much of rural Alberta, the amount of social diversity is somewhere between Slim and Zippo, and Slim just moved back to Regina.
Alberta didn't start out that way. The homesteaders who broke the land and built the foundation of this province were a motley crew from all over the globe. Many were economic and/or political refugees with differing faiths and values. A common desire for a new and better life united them, along with the stark reality of their mutual interdependence. In the community “code” that governed life in that era, one never – ever – left another person alone and stuck in the ditch, even if the stuck person was your worst enemy. To do so would irrevocably stain your reputation.
Diversity can lead to conflict, and that leads to the second attribute of socially engaged communities– the ability to use conflict as a tool in building a tolerant and enduring society. Properly managed conflict is to human progress as yeast is to wine. Discussions focusing on listening before speaking, and on mutual engagement rather than posturing, lead to deeper understanding and creative solutions.
All too often, the preferred community governance “Modus Operandi” for resolving issues is issue-avoidance or unilateral decision-making. Avoiding issues always resolves them in favor of the status quo, and unilateral decision-making disempowers the community. However, open and respectful conversations on important community issues leads to a deeper examination of the issue, and the possibility of alternative solutions.
Rocky Mountain House is a good example of a community with the courage to discuss and act together on a social concern. That community engaged in a thorough examination of the issues involved in Video Lottery Terminals. The community made its decision after thoroughly discussing the pros and cons.
Regardless of whether we agree with the outcome, we should applaud the community’s courage, for there are risks associated with this kind of open discussion. Would this community discussion tear open wounds that might take generations to heal?
It took courage and a strong belief in the validity of community social engagement to take such a chance. Rocky Mountain House had that courage. That’s the kind of guts that built this province, and I believe it’s the real “Alberta way”.
In the next post, I'll share my views on environmental engagement.
Yet reality is often different. When Alberta communities make important public decisions, some see economic gain as the fruit on the tree. Environmental concerns are the potential risks to the tree’s fruit. The social element of a community is the bird that might be enticed to come to sing in the tree.
We are puzzled when boom–time Alberta workers from places like Newfoundland and Saskatchewan make their money and return home. How can they turn their back on Paradise?
Do we have something to learn from Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, where life in socially engaged communities is often quite different? In those communities, the economy is the trunk of the tree providing support and feeding nourishment to the branches. The environmental element is the leaves– the sunlight receptors ensuring vigorous, sustainable growth. Anchoring the tree are the roots –the social elements of community life. All three are essential and interdependent.
Socially–engaged communities endure because of their attributes. Diversity is one of those attributes. Social diversity adds zest and vigor to community life. Yet in much of rural Alberta, the amount of social diversity is somewhere between Slim and Zippo, and Slim just moved back to Regina.
Alberta didn't start out that way. The homesteaders who broke the land and built the foundation of this province were a motley crew from all over the globe. Many were economic and/or political refugees with differing faiths and values. A common desire for a new and better life united them, along with the stark reality of their mutual interdependence. In the community “code” that governed life in that era, one never – ever – left another person alone and stuck in the ditch, even if the stuck person was your worst enemy. To do so would irrevocably stain your reputation.
Diversity can lead to conflict, and that leads to the second attribute of socially engaged communities– the ability to use conflict as a tool in building a tolerant and enduring society. Properly managed conflict is to human progress as yeast is to wine. Discussions focusing on listening before speaking, and on mutual engagement rather than posturing, lead to deeper understanding and creative solutions.
All too often, the preferred community governance “Modus Operandi” for resolving issues is issue-avoidance or unilateral decision-making. Avoiding issues always resolves them in favor of the status quo, and unilateral decision-making disempowers the community. However, open and respectful conversations on important community issues leads to a deeper examination of the issue, and the possibility of alternative solutions.
Rocky Mountain House is a good example of a community with the courage to discuss and act together on a social concern. That community engaged in a thorough examination of the issues involved in Video Lottery Terminals. The community made its decision after thoroughly discussing the pros and cons.
Regardless of whether we agree with the outcome, we should applaud the community’s courage, for there are risks associated with this kind of open discussion. Would this community discussion tear open wounds that might take generations to heal?
It took courage and a strong belief in the validity of community social engagement to take such a chance. Rocky Mountain House had that courage. That’s the kind of guts that built this province, and I believe it’s the real “Alberta way”.
In the next post, I'll share my views on environmental engagement.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Economic Side of Community Engagement
In today’s “Wired World”, we throw buzzwords around like confetti at a country wedding. All too often, the buzzwords have the all the substance and staying power of the confetti-– and some of the marriages.
Politicians rattle on about “accountable government”. Advocates of nuclear energy talk about “green energy”. And folks active in the community development biz talk about “engaged communities”.
What are “engaged communities”? Would we know one if it jumped up and bit us on the backside? How does a community go from “casual dating” to “engaged?”
I believe that an “engaged community” is a community that is involved in its’ own destiny– taking responsibility for its’ own economic, environmental, and social evolution. Primarily proactive rather reactive, it sees itself as its own change agent.
Bright-eyed and alert readers not conditioned to suck up buzz-words like kids suck up candy might well ask: “And what does that verbiage really mean, Les?” That’s a fair question.
Let's start with economic matters. An engaged community accepts the premise that everything communities do is interconnected and interdependent. The members of the community Economic Development Committee would not make decisions pertaining to important economic matters in isolation. Engaged communities conduct independent studies of the short, medium and long-term implications of economic development proposals for their congruence with community values. They assess the impact of economic proposals on environmental and social elements of community life, and build corrective strategies into the final plans.
Recent Alberta history shows what can happen when a combination of provincial policy and complaisant municipal councils push development not congruent with community values. A decade ago, it took passionate and determined action by the citizens of the Counties of Forty–Mile and Flagstaff to stonewall the late and unlamented Taiwan Sugar hog mega-project.
There’s another key element to local economic engagement– supporting Main Street. Many studies have shown the positive impact of communities shopping and eating locally. Most local businesses in Alberta do an admirable job of supporting their communities. From their perspective, it’s just good business. Unfortunately, too many residents of rural Alberta (the communities outside the major metropolitan areas) don’t reward that community support. The Lure of The Mall proves too strong and they leave their dollars (and the paychecks and profits their spending generates) in the big cities. It’s the kind of shortsighted behaviour that continues to turn off the lights on small–town Main Streets across western Canada.
That’s two elements that I see as key to the economic side of community engagement. In my next post in two two weeks I’ll examine the social side of community engagement.
Politicians rattle on about “accountable government”. Advocates of nuclear energy talk about “green energy”. And folks active in the community development biz talk about “engaged communities”.
What are “engaged communities”? Would we know one if it jumped up and bit us on the backside? How does a community go from “casual dating” to “engaged?”
I believe that an “engaged community” is a community that is involved in its’ own destiny– taking responsibility for its’ own economic, environmental, and social evolution. Primarily proactive rather reactive, it sees itself as its own change agent.
Bright-eyed and alert readers not conditioned to suck up buzz-words like kids suck up candy might well ask: “And what does that verbiage really mean, Les?” That’s a fair question.
Let's start with economic matters. An engaged community accepts the premise that everything communities do is interconnected and interdependent. The members of the community Economic Development Committee would not make decisions pertaining to important economic matters in isolation. Engaged communities conduct independent studies of the short, medium and long-term implications of economic development proposals for their congruence with community values. They assess the impact of economic proposals on environmental and social elements of community life, and build corrective strategies into the final plans.
Recent Alberta history shows what can happen when a combination of provincial policy and complaisant municipal councils push development not congruent with community values. A decade ago, it took passionate and determined action by the citizens of the Counties of Forty–Mile and Flagstaff to stonewall the late and unlamented Taiwan Sugar hog mega-project.
There’s another key element to local economic engagement– supporting Main Street. Many studies have shown the positive impact of communities shopping and eating locally. Most local businesses in Alberta do an admirable job of supporting their communities. From their perspective, it’s just good business. Unfortunately, too many residents of rural Alberta (the communities outside the major metropolitan areas) don’t reward that community support. The Lure of The Mall proves too strong and they leave their dollars (and the paychecks and profits their spending generates) in the big cities. It’s the kind of shortsighted behaviour that continues to turn off the lights on small–town Main Streets across western Canada.
That’s two elements that I see as key to the economic side of community engagement. In my next post in two two weeks I’ll examine the social side of community engagement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
