Florence City Council
City of Florence
P.O. Box 340
Florence, Oregon 97439

     RE:  Proposal to formally adopt the Strategic Plan for Community Economic Development

Councilors:

Before you vote on this proposal we would be most grateful if you would read this letter and
carefully consider all points.

Why is there a push once again to get the plan formally adopted?

Whoever is working toward this end most likely has a special interest in mind.  One can easily assume that the object is to give the Economic Plan more teeth.  That is; the Economic Plan can then be used in the same manner as the Comprehensive Plan.  The proponents of  particular strategies within the Plan, such as “Encourage Development of Golf Courses” or “Embrace Anchor Shopping Districts” can then proclaim that these strategies must be implemented.  The proponents would most likely push for specific strategies and goals to not only be seen as mandates for the city, but also as tools to argue for their particular special interests.

Why is this so bad?  Aren’t many of the goals and strategies beneficial to Florence?  And
aren’t some of the goals and strategies already being worked on?

Yes. Some of the goals and strategies are already done or being worked on.  And yes, many of the goals and strategies are beneficial.  The plan becomes a problem only in those areas where special interest groups have tried to bend the plan to their will.

For those of you who may not be aware of the history of this document, please read this next part very carefully.

Though the process was initially intended to focus on economics, the city saw the process as a unique opportunity to achieve greater citizen involvement with other issues that affect our city.  The information obtained from the citizens would then help guide the city as it goes through the periodic review of our Comprehensive Plan.

So far, so good.

The next piece of history is also very important.

The surveys, focus groups and public meetings that were initially held to gather information had several common themes.  One of which was that a majority of the people who responded were very concerned about maintaining Florence’s unique small-town atmosphere.  Whether the participants wanted more shopping or not, they all cared about preserving the natural beauty and about trying to preserve our small-town feeling.

It is important to say the words “small-town”, because a majority of people do understand what it means and they do want to try to keep Florence unique. It is also important to repeat these words and to emphasis them.  These very words were carefully deleted from the original document to craft the document you are now being asked to formally adopt.

Why were the words “small-town atmosphere/feeling” deleted?

Once again we’re back to a special interest group trying to bend the document to their will. The ‘why’ is very simple.  They wanted to eliminate any words or concepts that might take away from their efforts to encourage more big-box retail stores to locate here.

If these value statements were synthesized from focus groups, community-wide surveys, and public meetings, how could they just be deleted?

That is a good question.  A small committee was later formed (chaired by Alan Burns) with the purpose of cleaning up the document.

Why did the document need cleaning up?  Was it not finished?

 No.  And once again we get into the history of the process.  After two years of work by many citizens, a group of people felt like the process was not going in a direction with which they were comfortable.  Consequently, another completely separate document was put together by a second, separate group.  This second group then demanded that their document was equally valuable and needed to be incorporated into the one that had been worked on for two years.  Since RDI was, by this time, out of funds, and working pro bono to get the process completed, the consensus format completely broke down.

What was the consensus format?

Over the course of two years, various small groups worked on different issues.  Small group consensus building is time-consuming, tedious, and very necessary, especially when you begin to deal with issues such as development, spending tax dollars, preserving the environment, and private property rights.  Whether or not these issues were directly discussed, you can be sure that the discussions were carried out by people with differing viewpoints on these issues. Each person’s particular values pulled that consensus-building process back and forth many times until all at the table felt comfortable with the outcome.

How did the consensus format break down?

Since it was so late in the game when the second group brought in their proposed plan, it was
impossible to incorporate the two documents and hammer out the differences in a small group,
consensus format.

Consequently, the moderators decided to use an 80% voting process.  Since the small-group
consensus format was no longer operating, it was the best way to find out which topics were pretty close to consensus and which topics were not.  In other words, if 80% of the people present in the room agreed on a particular wording of a goal or strategy, then it was accepted.  This voting procedure was a flawed yet necessary alternative.

It is very difficult to arrive at consensus on controversial issues with a large group of people in a room highly charged with emotions and with the added pressure to get it done quickly.

What was the outcome of the melding of the two documents?

After voting on the topics that were decidedly different between the two documents, it came down to several that never reached the 80% requirement.  It was decided that those topics would be included as an addendum and were noted on page three, paragraph one of the May 1997 document. “Additional community consensus building work is needed in order to bring closure to several items within both the vision statement and the proposed goals and strategies (see Addendum 2).”

Did ‘additional community consensus building work’ take place for these unresolved items?

 NO.  It did not.  This is why the original document that was then altered by the small committee, was not formally adopted by the prior acting council.  They seemed to understand that by adopting the altered document it would be irresponsible, unethical, and a slap in the face to the many Florence citizens who gave two years of their time on this process.

Unresolved topics that were meant to be discussed with broad community input and working toward  consensus should not be decided by seven or eight people.  This small committee has failed to honor the 80% vote.  In addition to altering the goals and strategies, they also removed various words and sentences that were included in the original document.  Among the deletions and alterations were the following:

1.   Deleted: “Additional community consensus building work is needed in order to bring closure to several items within both the vision statement and the proposed goals and strategies (see Addendum 2).”

2.   Deleted: “Small town atmosphere” and “small town feeling” throughout the document.

3.   Deleted: “Appropriate land use measures will be important to manage this development in ways that mitigate disruption to traffic flow, local aesthetics, and existing local businesses.”  This language was intended to deal with problems associated with big box retail.

4.   Deleted: “Strip commercial development detracts from the appeal of Florence for visitors and local residents”. ( It should be noted that this was a list of weaknesses that was a part of public input.)

5.   Deleted: “A broader consensus vision”.  This was listed under Opportunities as a part of the public input. ( It is ironic that this wording would be removed.)

6.   Deleted the original value statements (page 8, May 1997 document) that were achieved by consensus and inserted value statements that did not later receive the 80% vote.

7.   Added a statement that the economic development goals would have ‘maximum’ priority. (Did not receive 80% vote.)

8.   Added “Encourage development of golf course resorts”. (Did not receive 80% vote.)

9.  Added “Embrace anchor shopping districts”. (Did not receive 80% vote.)

10.  Deleted: “Create a Focused Town Center that is a special place with significant progress by the year 2000.” ( This is also ironic since the current city council has approved the beginning stages for implementing the Downtown Plan.  It should be noted that although this also did not receive 80% vote, it was not added.)

These are some of the changes that the small committee made.

What do we do now?  What is a solution?

There are three choices.

1.    Do not formally adopt this document: Greater Florence Area Strategic Plan, March 1998.

2.    Adopt only those portions that were clearly done with the broader citizen input and came closest to consensus.  The easiest way to do this is to adopt the May 1997 document.  It includes those portions that require “Additional community consensus building work…”.

3.    Do not formally adopt either document and instead bring closure to the portions that need community consensus building by doing what the previous city council should have done.

A.   Appoint a committee that will work to bring together a large number of participants with a wide range of values, belief systems, occupations, lifestyles and interest such as; builders, housewives, bankers, retirees, slow growth advocates, representatives from volunteer organizations, students, people involved in the schools,  the homeless and the parks.

B.   Allow time for small group discussions over these controversial issues.  Allow time for educated discussions and consensus building.

You have a chance to move the city in a healthy direction, to right a wrong, and to make the most responsible and honorable decision.

Thank you for reading this letter to the end.

Sincerely,
(signed)
Zane Ziemer, President