|
Tuesday, 18 September 2007 |
|
Page 6 of 12
Advocate’s Wisdom
The skatepark process can be full of surprises. The good news is sometimes embedded in a host of compromises, and other times great successes may contain unseen downsides. For example, if the effort to advocate for a community skatepark is successful, the effort can easily become very complex and challenging for the advocacy group to fully grasp. Choices may be presented for the group’s “endorsement” that may not be in the skateboarding community’s best interest. It’s valuable to understand where it is prudent to compromise and where one should stand one’s ground.
No skatepark advocate will get far without being able to communicate with their city officials.
City administrators and elected officials will be doing a great public service by reaching out to their local skateboarding community.
Throughout the course of the effort, trusted relationships will emerge and the new skatepark will have garnered support from a diverse cross-section of the community. From time to time there may be tough decisions presented by someone the group trusts a great deal or rifts within the group itself about the direction or ultimate goal of the project.
These are the toughest situations for any group to face. For example, when the City of Seattle, Washington wanted to renovate a city park containing a beloved bowl, skatepark advocates were spurred to action to save the facility. The city promised to rebuild the bowl nearby. The area advocates were split; some trusted the city to build a better bowl nearby while others felt that the current bowl was perfectly fine where it was. In the end, those who opted to compromise and work with the city are now designing a skatepark system that includes more than a dozen parks. Compromise, in this case, demonstrated a willingness on behalf of the skateboarding community to work with the city to identify the best solution.
The vision established for the public and skateboarding community will be the measure for any potential compromise. If one decision leads to “faster” or “cheaper” or “easier,” it’s probably not building toward the original vision. With clear vision, compromise is easy to navigate.
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 14 February 2008 )
|
