Positive Vision Is Better than Labeling

The following article, written by Jeff Smith and printed in this past week's Evanston Review "Opinion" section, articulates what I believe is the general consensus of many citizens who are continually labeled as anti-developers. Thank you, Jeff, for your continued efforts.

Choose Change That Respects Residents' Choices

No one disagrees that Evanston's had a building boom. The debate is how much further to continue. Both some proponents and critics argue that the dispute is about money, whether for developers, City coffers, or homeowners. To many Evanstonians, the issues are different: the debate is more about Evanston's future, and its character.

Most of us who chose to make Evanston home did so consciously, seeking a happy medium less urban than Chicago, yet more diverse and less "suburban" than other towns. Residents' impulse to preserve the balance they sought, in the community where they've invested lives and fortunes, is not only natural, but healthy.

To scold that change is inevitable, implying that citizens' only role is to accept conditions foisted upon them, both disrespects that investment and contradicts basic democracy. In self-government, we choose our future. A community has the prerogative, if not the duty, to guide change, rather than bob helplessly in its currents, or watch those currents become floodwaters. Some changes are disasters. A discerning and conscientious polis seeks to avoid what makes life more unpleasant or unfair, and embraces what preserves and enhances qualities we cherish.

Oversimplification is poor substitute for reasoned discourse. So is personalization of policymaking, whether through hurling of epithets like "NIMBY," or attacking messengers to silence the message. The burden on both proponents and questioners of density and growth is to present an affirmative vision for Evanston's future, total ecological impact, true costs to community, and who pays for those.

Jeffrey P. Smith

Forums: