Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kathy's avatar

I love this, Darrin. Thinking locally really helps people to concentrate on the, "But what can I actually DO?" questions that big issues seem to generate.

One theory I have about why many candidates with great ideas struggle to get attention is that issues like these get lost in other priorities, like jobs and affordability. If progressive or urban-planning candidates want to attract notice, it could be helpful for them to help people understand how their ideas relate to day-to-day concerns, AND, how their ideas are not mutually exclusive from other issues that people worry about.

People want it all. They want better focus on density, AND they want to keep the option to have a house with a yard. They want better transit, AND they want the option to drive a car if they choose to or need to. I tend to see candidates focus on one or the other. I of course understand that we can't always have it all. But I also feel that progressive candidates might be more successful if they could convince people that they could have *some* of it all. Does that make sense? Like in Bogota, they didn't shut down all of the streets, and they didn't shut down some streets every day.

It's an uphill climb (literally, if you're going to the Hart) to convince people to budge on things they hold dear, but if you can convince people that what's good for downtown is also good for the Hart, there may be better success.

Expand full comment
Susan Moriarty Schienbein's avatar

The sprawl is real. I think you are right on many points here Darren, particularly around the status quo at our local government and a lack of progressive candidates willing to run. Let’s bring Brent Toderian to PG for a visioning session for our downtown.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts