A summary of the latest meeting held by PICKERING ‘FORWARD PLANNING’
I attended one of the Pickering Planning Dept’s public input meetings for the first time recently, Feb 6/25. It was an interesting, engaging and mind-boggling event.
First impressions
Thinking it was a mish-mash, disorganized, and incomprehensible mess at the start, I was very wrong. The Planning Dept’s only error, if one could suggest such was that TIME PRESSURES impacted on the meeting. The dept people tried to get too much done in too short a time.
The goal of the meeting, attended by about 50 residents, was to obtain input from the attendees in relation to an aspect of the OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF PICKERING.
The topic, ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY, which meant an examination of the Pickering’s future in regard to its environment and the retention and maintenance of the positive aspects of that environment. The participants were divided into smaller groups of 8-10 persons, given tools to assist in their discussion and instructed to dealing with the examination of the topic.
It was an eye-opening experience as the various groups dealt with an array of aspects of Pickering of Tomorrow:
- Natural Heritage and Open Space System
- Watershed Management
- Tree Protection and Urban Forest
- Passive Recreational Use
- Conforming with Provincial Policy
- Conservation Authorities’ Role
- Opportunities for the New Official Plan
It is difficult to capture the energy, enthusiasm and educational aspects of the meeting. Each group was enthusiastic in discussing the ‘good,’ the ‘bad,’ and the ‘ugly’ aspects of the city and how the impact on these in the city’s future.
Just one example to show how varied and broad the discussions were: one group were skeptical about the towering high-rise construction, not because of size or elevation, but because of the environmental impact of the mislocation of these buildings on the migration of birds and butterflies. Imagine that….caring about the birds and the bees of our city tomorrow.
Discussions were far and wide, dealing with flooding, chemical runoffs, water front erosion, to name just a few.
The good
The meeting was a great opportunity for a small group of residents to open discussion doors to Pickering of Tomorrow, its neighbourhoods, its environs, its challenges, its problems and its potential difficulties.
The bad
This meeting was in the evening, and a time restriction of less than two hours was imposed on the discussions. A tough demand for people at the end of their regular day and pressuring them to complete an unfamiliar task within less than two hours.
The ugly
One might think that the most obvious difficulties would be noise, unfamiliar equipment, and communication with unfamiliar people…these were big problems, undoubtedly. But they weren’t the biggest problem. The biggest problem was INCOMPREHENSION.
INCOMPREHENSION
Meetings like this are disastrous if people can’t understand what is being asked, said, or explained.
- It should be MANDATORY that speakers always RE-STATE or PARAPHRASE the posed question to ensure that everyone understands what is being asked. Too often the questioner is not clear enough in asking their question or confusing it with too many deviations in the ‘ask.’ The SPEAKER should repeat the question for everyone for better clarity of what was asked.
- JARGON, WORDINESS, COMPLEXITY
Keep it simple, for heaven’s sake. We acknowledge your intelligence, your professionalism, your expertise…but for heaven’s sake, we are not in your league. Make it a conversational explanation, not a dissertation on the merits of quantum physics and reverse conglomeration of the neutron particles in the neophysical combulaton of the universe. Talk to ME, not above me or beyond me.
The PLANNING DEPT has held a number of these meetings, and if this one exemplifies the others, they must have received a tremendous amount of useful, valuable input. The participants were not experienced in municipal planning, but to a person, they displayed knowledge and familiarity with the city and suggested constructive and intelligent ideas relating to future environmental issues. This was valuable and beneficial material for the Planning department.
The most important ‘takeaway’ from this meeting was a cautionary one. The participants developed some very valuable and strong ideas regarding Pickering’s future, but it would be very disappointing if these ideas fell on deaf ears. Bureaucrats may treat input from unprofessional and non-experienced city residents as being ‘light’ and easily disposed of. They would be wrong. The input came from knowledgeable people, people who know their city, live, work and play in it, and raise families in it. They are people who care about its future and sustaining its livability as it grows. Their ideas and input is the gold of tomorrow’s Pickering.
