Go fact yourself

It was Feb. 3 when The City Wire posted the story about the Fort Smith board of directors voting to spend $62,000 to support an “opportunity analysis” of riverfront development.

Of all the millions of dollars in projects discussed and/or approved by city directors in the past 90 days, it was this relatively small $62,000 allocation that sparked an amazing dialogue among The City Wire readers. As of Sunday, (Feb. 15), there were 32 comments to the riverfront analysis story from about 20 people — which is considerably more public input on this issue than garnered by any other media outlet or even heard/allowed at city board meetings.

The comments were wonderful and welcome because the opinions and passion of each commenter provides a brief glimpse into the collective mood of the citizenry.

To be sure, there is no “collective” mood in the sense of everyone being on the same page. Instead, it’s more of a split personality mood; a schizophrenic population pulled into the madness, so to speak, by a surprisingly strong chain of personal biases, tightly-held grudges and the willingness to launch from thought to active communication with just enough evidence to piece together a few sentences.

Please follow me through a few bullet points of my perceptions of the collective mood of the citizenry.

And, Kind Reader, please know that this outline of perceptions is not an attempt to support or refute the board’s action to provide the $62,000 for the study, nor is it intended to personally praise or criticize any of the comments on the board action. Please accept this as an admittedly limited analysis from a person who has found it fascinating to watch and report on the people of this region for more than 16 years.

• Do something, damnit!
There are folks in the area tired of talking and studies and consultants and feel-good flip chart sessions. They want action. “Do something,” they are saying, “even if it’s not 100% correct.”

The frustration is certainly understandable, especially among folks who just a few short years ago trusted the Fort Smith Regional Chamber of Commerce with their faith and funds in the effort to engage a new economic development strategy. Suffice it say, the expectations built by the chamber were never met.

As a result, many are now looking to the city of Fort Smith and the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith for actionable leadership. What they don’t want to hear or see are more studies, more talk or another failed effort at leadership. However, this Do Something Now group doesn’t necessarily agree on what should be done, who should do it, where it should be done and when it should be done.

Therein lies the conundrum for what little bold leadership remains. The first steps into the airless void of a leadership vacuum are the most dangerous.

• Misinformation management
Comments for and against the board action contained a disappointing amount of misinformation.

One of the more common forms of misinformation on the subject of the city contributing $62,000 to partner in the study on how to develop the riverfront is this: “The city has no business using taxpayer dollars to support development on private land.”

The mingling of private and public funds is a valid debate with a rich global history that likely dates back to the first form of civil government. However, one of the many roles of city government — to include the city of Fort Smith — is to use public funds to promote private development. Water-supply systems (Lake Fort Smith), streets, parks, infrastructure support of subdivision development and incentives for new companies are just a few of the widely-accepted uses of public funds to support the investment of private dollars. A city government carries the responsibility to improve the tax base.

We as citizens might seek to publicly determine the extent to which we support private development. That would be a valid, if not healthy, exercise. But to reject the $62,000 appropriation solely on the grounds public funds shouldn’t support private development is to stand logic — and centuries of precedent — on its head.

One more point of misinformation is this: “The city is paying for another study and the last thing we need is another study.”

Indeed! The last thing we need is another broad study about what the region should be when it grows up. However, where a study might suggest the rifle and ammo to shoot economic targets of value, the riverfront analysis assumes we have rifle and ammo at the ready and are merely adjusting our aim. City governments often (and federal governments, judging from recent stimulus packages) take the Ready-Fire-Aim approach. This analysis seeks to aim before pulling a trigger.

• Citizen responsibility
For the most part, definitive rules are for suckers. But the one rule I’ve been unable to escape in the business of communication is, “Seek first to understand.”

We humans have an amazing capacity to bullshit ourselves. A lot of otherwise brilliant people freely and excitedly gave Bernie Madoff their life savings to invest. Ivy-League graduates with impeccable business backgrounds ran their businesses as if the housing market would be the only market in recorded economic history to never correct itself.

Hell, that goes for me, also. There was a time I was an avid supporter of term limits for Arkansas legislators. There was little to no research on my part that resulted in the avid support. Instead, I allowed myself to get caught up in the conventional wisdom that a forced turnover of legislators would result in better political leadership. Because I voted emotion instead of careful consideration, I was not a responsible citizen. (This is a condemnation of my approach to a civic issue rather than a condemnation of term limits.)

A good practice for any citizen is to engage an honest effort to challenge their initial emotion/reaction/belief on any subject of civic importance. This might especially be a good practice for city directors. Directors are required — ideally, at least — to govern. We trust them to set aside emotion, personal biases, past grudges, etc., and give each decision thorough, honest and respectful consideration.

• Disagreement is good
A battery with two positive or two negative points is useless. And so it is with public discourse. Two opposing points often create a circuit by which the power to move forward is provided. We have the history of our Founding Fathers to provide more than adequate proof that heated disagreement can be productive if all parties remain respectful of each other and the process.

• Communication breakdown
It is both easy and wrong to criticize wholly the commenters for their misinformed statements. There is the possibility that the blame for why misinformation often overpowers facts in our civic discussions lies with the city of Fort Smith and its historically inconsistent and superficial attempts to create a constructive dialogue with citizens.

The time has long past for the city of Fort Smith to create and fund a proactive communications department. And yes, City Director Bill Maddox, this will cost money. But how much is it worth to establish and maintain a communications program that provides a more meaningful conversations between city officials/staff and citizens? Because knowledge is power, how much would it be worth to create a more powerful/informed citizenry? (And by communications, we do not mean propaganda or spin.)

And maybe that it is the one broad lesson we can take from this interesting and active riverfront analysis dialogue supported by The City Wire; and that is, More Communication is not necessarily Better Communication.

As citizens, public servants or both, we have an obligation to seek better communication through the continuous desire to seek the facts underlying the issues. And the first step in doing that is to carefully review the facts on which you/I stand before questioning the facts on which I/you stand.

That, or we create one of those big steel cage thingies used in the movie “Thunderdome” and violently resolve matters of civic policy and progress. I’d buy a ticket.