Letter to the Editor – Yountville Elementary School development process is not comprehensive, collaborative or transparent
Dear Editor,
Could it be that the engineers of the speeding Yountville Elementary School (YES) site train are easing back on the throttle in response to those voicing concerns and frustrations about the plan and the way the plan has been developed? We shall see.
Hundreds of people are trying to wrestle that handle back. With conversations, public comments, letters to the editor, social media posts and petitions they’re voicing a range of concerns and a core message: “We are not being heard!”
I’m guessing that to council members and staff this is frustrating, irritating and confusing, given the enormous lengths they’ve gone to use a comprehensive, collaborative and transparent approach. They may ask, “Where were you when we had all those open houses, study sessions, one-on-one discussions with the architect, and council meetings?” “Why don’t you acknowledge the tremendous effort we’ve put into community engagement?” “Why are you expressing concerns so late in the process?” “Why do you continue to complain!?”
So, why all the ruckus? Is this just the some-people-complain-no-matter-what phenomenon associated with every community development project? No. This is the inevitable consequence of a unilateral, top-down approach.
Huh? You just said it was comprehensive, collaborative and transparent! Here’s what’s going on: What appears to be a collaborative approach is a unilateral approach masquerading as a collaborative approach. I’m not suggesting that anyone deliberately disguised unilateralism behind a facade of collaboration. On the contrary, I believe council members have acted in good faith and with every intention of committing to a comprehensive, collaborative and transparent process.
But it is possible to believe that a process is comprehensive, collaborative and transparent when in fact it’s none of those things. Yes, there have been many opportunities to offer ideas and voice concerns—and residents have been doing that from the very beginning—but those opportunities have been deeply flawed and neither Town Council nor town manager have been listening.
For council members and staff, all this may be painful or uncomfortable to read. It is certainly painful and uncomfortable to write. But in the interest of the community, I think it’s important, and I hope helpful, to share this feedback—the reality of this situation as I see it. Please keep in mind that my intention is not to castigate people, but to critique process.
The reality, as I see it, is that the entire YES endeavor has been deeply flawed from the get-go. The engineers of the YES train made the following fateful decisions that set the tone and form of the process and led to all that has followed:
1. Put the cart before the horse by moving forward with a housing development before making any attempt to ascertain whether there is a need, i.e., if any of the people for whom it is to be built would want to live there.
2. Presented a monolithic housing project located in the center of town as the predetermined outcome before initiating the public input process, thus limiting the scope and blunting the effect of public input. The only question that remained for the public to weigh in on was the form of the design. There has been no exploration of alternatives, such as dispersed housing clusters, privately held ADUs, enhanced transportation options (e.g., employee shuttle or transportation subsidies), or a combination of those and other solutions—or even no solution at all.
3. Decided not to hire a professional facilitator to design and manage the community engagement process. There have been many, many meetings, but they’ve all been designed and managed by the architect and town manager. This matters. In fact, this is one of the most important and unfortunate decisions. Why?
a. Because architecture, town management, and community engagement facilitation are three distinct fields each with its own body of knowledge and skill set. Only a seasoned professional facilitator can provide the level of expertise demanded by a project of this scale.uilt would want to live there.
b. In contrast to an architect or town manager, a professional facilitator has no vested interest in the outcome of the process. The unavoidable bias of anyone living or working within the community inevitably distorts a community engagement process. Only a seasoned professional facilitator can provide the level of objectivity demanded by a project of this scale.
c. The number of opportunities for community engagement has been cited as proof that the process is comprehensive and collaborative. But even 10,000 town-designed and managed open houses would not be enough because they fail to elicit and incorporate good data.
d. The open houses were open to the public but were not open to all ideas or perspectives. Instead, ideas were presented that led people in a certain direction from the beginning.
4. Neglected to actively integrate entire swaths of the community into the process, including business owners, veterans and, inexplicably, employees.
5. Made the process less than transparent. At best I would call it translucent. Information is filtered: some revealed, some not. For example, what was discussed at those one-on-one discussions with the architect? What ideas offered? What concerns raised? Was any of this incorporated to any degree into the plan? We have no idea, because the content of those discussions has not been shared publicly.
6. Chose a name, “Yountville Commons” without any public discussion. This name simply appeared. How was this decided and by whom? Who knows. The only thing that is clear is that it was decided unilaterally. Needless to say, this is antithetical to the word commons.
7. Ceded far too much power to the town manager. Decisions of this magnitude, that is, with potential to alter the character of the community should not be made by a town manager, but by community members and their elected representatives.
8. Failed to fully receive, consider, and incorporate community input into the plan. In response to the ideas and feedback, the council and town manager favor defensiveness over curiosity. They ask few questions; downplay, deflect, and dismiss concerns; and offer scant explanations for their decisions. Meaningful dialogue between decision-makers and stakeholders is literally unheard of. Where are the financial studies, stakeholder surveys, professional facilitators, open-ended charrettes, website displaying all relevant information, and ad hoc stakeholder research and design committees? All suggested. None implemented. No changes in direction or speed. The train just keeps on rolling.
A sure sign that people do not feel heard is that they repeat themselves. They will continue to “complain” until they find evidence of having been heard.
When it comes to the perceived quality of the YES development process, there is a serious disconnect between council members and staff and stakeholders. This is a real problem, and rather than deny, deflect, or resist, it must be recognized, acknowledged, and addressed.
The YES development process is irretrievably flawed and should be scrapped entirely. Simply refining it is not enough. An entirely new and very different process is essential—one that is truly comprehensive, collaborative, and transparent. This means building anew from the ground up with a more robust design, new protocols and professional facilitation.
And this is not just about the process: We need to let go of all preconceived notions of the outcome and start over—with a beginner’s mind.
Will Hays
Yountville
Sponsored
Author
