Salient Points
For:
- The ambitious and expensive recreational park is intended to be a destination project
- Help integrate this community to address the growing east-west divide due to economic growth
- Other cities have benefited from similar centers
- Greater good would be served by spending the money and locating the center in a place that would not reinforce the east-west divide that seemed to be growing
- project will benefit the community in the long run,
Against:
- neighborhood associations think it would bring unwanted traffic and destroy a landmark neighborhood park
- fitness centers see the park as potential government competition with private sector
- anti-tax group believes it is too costly
- if built at this size and at this location it will alienate a significant portion of the population
Alternatives Forwarded:
- Neighborhood associations, fitness centers and anti-tax group suggest that the neighborhood recreation center be built on the west side, the growing and affluent side of town
Deliberative Decision Making Process:
The aim of constructing the recreational park is not to alienate some segments of the population but to help them grow economically. The community however does not see it this way. They believe that it will alienate them, thus, the source of conflict.
The best way to address this problem is to allow the community to participate in the decision-making process and let their voices be heard. At the same time, the local government should be vigilant against catering to the interest of the few.
The community is adamant about putting up a recreational park because they are not aware of the goals and the future benefits they will reap from it. The local government should initiate a dialogue with the residents in order to convince them of the need to put up such project.
Through these dialogues, the local residents should be given the opportunity to voice their concerns. At the same time, the local government should be able to assure them that they are taking their opinions seriously and are looking for ways to address the issues effectively.
Compromise should be the name of the game. The solution is to find a way to marry two conflicting thoughts - those for and against the project.
Every huge endeavor is bound to alienate some segments of the society at one point or another. The community's major concerns are it might disrupt peaceful neighborhood and compete with local businesses.
Competing with local businesses is indeed a possible effect of the recreational park. But what the local businessman fail to consider is if the park operates, their customer base will no longer be limited to local residents but to a larger perhaps wealthier group of tourists who will be flocking to the place. The loss of local customers could be offset by the influx of more tourists.
At the same time it could encourage the establishment of more local businesses since with more tourists frequenting the area, there are more business possibilities and jobs created for the locals.
With regards to the disruption of the neighborhood, providing an ample number of authorities to patrol the area, the threats on traffic and criminal elements could be effectively minimized. Also, with proper planning and coordination, potential problems could be addressed satisfactorily and this problem could be totally avoided.
The anti-tax group's fear on huge costs incurred could be countered by pointing out that the potential revenues a recreational park will make later could easily make up for the costs.
The aim of establishing the recreational park is to generate the greater good for the greater number of people. Past experiences, existing government records and feasibility studies could prove the success of recreational parks.
The price of this success though would be to alienate some sectors of the community particularly the affected neighborhoods and the local businesses. However, their concerns could also be to some degree baseless because the presence of the recreational park could definitely help the locals generate more income for local businesses. The local government can also find ways to prevent unwanted traffic to the area once the park opens.
Conclusion
Dialogue would provide a venue for the government to alleviate the residents' unwarranted fears surrounding the recreational park project. It could also be a good way to present their platform to the public to make the people understand the huge possibilities behind this project not just for the government's coffers but for local businesses as well.
The local government should not base their decisions on unsubstantiated "fears". They have actual feasibility studies, past experience and government reports and data from similar cases to back their claims as opposed to the public's unwarranted "fears" which would not possibly materialize.
The recreational park project should push through because its immense potentials could not be overlooked. However, the local government should conduct dialogue and information drive to sway the tide of approval to their side. They have to convince the public to see the park as potential opportunity not a problem. With the community's support, the success of the project would be greatly assured.
