|
Page 5 of 12
The Opposition
Many advocates anticipate resistance to the skatepark concept. Given the amount of negative stereotypes that surround skateboarders, it should come as no surprise that many people will rely upon these preconceptions when reacting to the skatepark project.
1998 STATISTICS
A short overview of skateboarding history and participation statistics from the '90s.
The advocates are usually seen as the skatepark experts. They know more about skateboarding than anyone else and have spent countless hours practicing responses to the most common negative stereotypes for skateparks and skateboarding. All of this preparation can often lead the advocate into a defensive posture that invites a confrontation or challenge to the ideas surrounding the skatepark. The defensive advocate anticipates powerful forces acting against their vision. The good news is that there are thousands of skateparks in the United States, and each one of them was created using essentially the same tools and concepts that are presented in this guide. The bad news is that there are people who don’t like the idea of skateparks, and the advocate will eventually hear from them. Skatepark concepts always fail when the skatepark advocates give up. Regardless of the degree of resistance, whether it’s a unified denial by the Parks Department or a vocal individual from the community, the skatepark advocate must always carefully monitor tone and manage their own responses, both for the sake of the skatepark effort and for their own longevity in advocating for it. Frustration is the single largest cause of volunteer burnout, and the number-one killer of skatepark projects.
“Like Skateparks, But … ”
Many opponents will sugarcoat their comments to avoid looking like “the bad guy.” Skatepark advocates often operate as youth advocates which, to most people, represents a very positive and powerful force. In comparison, the skatepark detractor knows that their resistance to such a positive force will only make them look bad. Most advocates have heard, “We completely agree that our youth need a safe place to recreate but …” Though they seem to be proposing a win-win solution, they are revealing that they maintain negative stereotypes about skateboarders. Responding to such stereotypes in a calm demeanor and with credible information that contradicts the detractor’s opinion is the best way to manage them. Reasonable listeners, whether officials or members of the public, will naturally support the most believable information.
WE'RE BUILDING A WHAT?!
Another short essay underscoring the kind of misunderstandings many people have regarding skateparks.
Those who oppose the skatepark concept on a purely emotional basis will eventually lose because of the fundamental truths about the skatepark advocate’s message:
• Skateboarding is a healthy and popular athletic activity
• Skateboarders are our neighbors
• The best place for skateboarders is at a skatepark
Skateboarding is a mainstream activity practiced by millions of young people across the country that represent every ethnicity and span the economic spectrum. To suggest that skateboarders are a bad element is to suggest that youth in general are bad. It doesn’t get much more simple than that. Through the enlightened message you present, and hearing the information over and over, skatepark opponents will come to understand that they’re on the wrong side of the argument.
“Don’t Like Skateparks”
Although opposition can come in many forms, the most common detractors are those who are afraid of the people they believe the skatepark is designed to attract. This is an emotional reaction and difficult to change through reasonable discussion. When these opponents get frustrated they commonly attempt to refute anything that the skatepark advocate proposes until the skatepark is sited miles away from anything. The stock arguments made by these opponents usually rely upon anecdotal evidence, unrelated issues, or just their unsubstantiated opinions about skateboarders and skateboarding. Most opponents will take reasonable concerns and inflate them into seemingly titanic issues: noise, crowds, increased traffic, parking problems, illicit activity, and so on. They will not usually ask how much noise a skatepark generates, for example, but tell the audience that skateparks are noisy. All of these common concerns have been raised countless times and addressed over and over, and very few skateparks have been built without convincing decision makers that these questions have been answered to their satisfaction (if not to opponents’).
30 REASONS
Can you ever have too many reasons for a skatepark?
“Hate Everything About Skateboarders”
Seems funny to imagine having to face someone who just "doesn't like it," but it happens more often than one might think. These people have serious concerns but they don't know yet what they don't like about it. The worst thing you can do is to demonstrate what they don't like about skateboarders by being hostile, dismissive, or confrontational. In a public setting, most people won't have much sympathy for the individual or group who doesn't want to see a skatepark in "their neighborhood," but if you put them on the defensive, people may start to feel sympathic to them. That's not good for your mission.
Advocacy can be confrontational. However, most of the nation’s best skateparks are the result of subtle, refined advocacy and clear language. Advocates should focus on working diplomatically with the city and seeking solutions to the “mutual problem.” The energy saved by working collaboratively can be used later for those confrontations that can’t be avoided.
From time to time a skatepark opponent will seek to undermine the advocate’s credibility by using emotional rhetoric designed to antagonize and “break” the advocate’s composure. These usually come in the form of some preposterous claim about skateboarders being responsible for acts of intentional destruction or abuse. This is a dastardly approach and, especially when the skatepark advocate is inexperienced or unaccustomed to confrontational encounters, incredibly abusive. If this situation arises in a public setting, the best approach is to let the antagonist reveal their prejudice on their own. There is no need for the advocate to help illuminate the stereotypes; the antagonist damages his or her own credibility simply by being so insulting to the skateboarding youth. The more preposterous the claim, the less attention it deserves.
It's helpful to keep your mission in perspective when confronted with hateful ideas about skateboarders and what they claim will happen at the skatepark. When it becomes time to remind people what it is you're trying to accomplish, focus on the positive aspects of the project:
1. The skatepark is an important facility for the whole community.
2. When you plan for success, you get success (and when you plan for failure, you'll get failure).
3. Skaters who will be using the new park are a part of your community RIGHT NOW...they aren't "outsiders."
It is human nature to be attracted to positive, optimistic ideas. A positive message is especially powerful when responding to negative concerns. Over the course of the skatepark effort, the proponents will present the skatepark idea, or project status, over and over to different people and groups. The audiences will become excited for the new skatepark when it is described enthusiastically, and they will want to be a part of its success. This is easily achieved by keeping the messages positive.
|
