Public airing of ideas discouraged
Change is a fact of life, but to have choices about the direction of that change, we need ideas and options before making decisions. The democratic process works best when people are able to publicly suggest options and alternatives for consideration by all.
Sadly, alternatives to rampant growth, which might accomplish the vision of 90% of the people at the visioning meetings who wanted to maintain our low-key friendly community, are virtually nonexistent. They were squashed early on by the pro-incorporation, pro-rapid growth, first interim council members before the visioning process even began, with tactics like those now surfacing.
First, despite Mayor Miller's assertions, it was Mr. Brocha who first said, in the Seattle Times, May 27, 1992, that he expected "the first council meeting to take place in somebody's home." If Mr. Brocha first came up with this type of idea, why was Mr. Dixon so venomously attacked for suggesting an idea that the council could meet in public locations other than at Sorenson? Perhaps because he represents alternatives to the status quo? It seems reasonable to assume that both comments were simply meant as options available for public discussion.
Second, re: Mr. Brocha's suggestion that we talk to councilmembers about our concerns personally, it may feel good to talk one-on-one, but private discussions are not always in our best interests.
Both the angry put-downs in letters like Mr. Schneider's and the charming sophistry in Mr. Brocha's discourage public airing of ideas. And unless our voices are public, the public record will never show that anyone cares about those issues!
I am grateful that the City Council meets in public and provides time for public comment at its meetings. I am also grateful that the Woodinville Weekly is a free press which allows for a public forum.
Maria Morris, Woodinville