 |
Editor's ViewpointMeditations Of A Minnesota Mossback |
Agenda v. Vision
As I write this, the Global Language Monitor estimates English has almost one million words - 991,207, to be exact. By contrast, the French language has fewer than 100,000.
I just love English.
It provides people with dozens of ways to say anything. But there are a few pitfalls, however. Consider the way perfectly good English words acquire extra meanings. The average English speaker can now offend almost anybody without the slightest intention of doing so, simply by using words that have recently acquired specific political or social connotations.
I offer the perfectly good words "agenda" and "vision" as examples.
"Agenda" is defined as "a program of items of business to be dealt with at a meeting." At least, that is how it appears in my dog-eared Oxford. There is no mention in my antiquated dictionary of the darker side of the word that is now often employed by persons who take issue with another individual's intentions and motives. Agenda has become a favorite bon mot to describe the plans and goals of someone with whom one disagrees, as in "The City Council has an agenda."
Then there is "vision." Besides its obvious connection with the human eye, the word is defined as "imaginative insight into a subject or problem . foresight and wisdom in planning," as in "The Planning Commission has a vision for the city."
In a perfect world, nobody in our community would have an agenda. Everyone would, instead, have a vision.
But what if somebody else's vision doesn't agree with your own? Does that make it an agenda?
Over the past year, there has been a rumbling in Hugo's rural areas in response to the adoption of the city's Rural and Open Space Preservation Ordinance. Some rural homeowners argue that council members have an agenda that includes the development of rural areas to ensure a steady stream of permit and tax revenue into city hall. Council members and city officials maintain that development is coming, and that only by adopting different planning techniques will open spaces be set aside for the future.
This argument is not confined to Hugo. Residents from Afton, Minn. to Snohomish, Wash. are debating the merits and drawbacks of the "cluster housing" concept - or one of its variants - in meeting spaces specially reserved to accommodate overflow crowds.
What interests me most is how the dust will settle. It isn't a particular issue that will ultimately define our communities, but, rather, how our communities can ultimately handle discourse and disagreement, dissension or - ultimately - discord, that will define us. (See what I mean about English?)
The fact that the city of Hugo has spent a number of years developing the ordinance - with resident involvement - is notable. The fact that most city residents largely stayed out of the picture during the process is undeniable. And the fact that now, after the fact, residents of rural areas want to weigh in on the topic is not surprising.
We all have a stake in our community. But it is how we go about resolving our differences that defines us as a city. One thing is for sure - nobody is going to win all the time.
Barry Goldwater said, "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable." Neighbors who need to work together for the common good need to be able to disagree - and perhaps find compromise - without vilifying proponents of opposing philosophies. Small wonder our state and federal elected officials can't manage the task, if neighbors who live half a mile from each other can't find a way to have a meaningful discussion without suspecting ulterior motives on the other side.
For council members, that may mean concluding that a lack of support among rural residents is a reason to retrench. For rural property owners, that may mean getting involved in the city's comprehensive plan planning process in a big way.
And for each and every one of us, that may mean recognizing that perhaps that other guy's agenda is really only his vision, after all.