Unity: How will I promote the motto “In unity there is strength”? (And sadly, once again, ladies and gentlemen, apparently Mr. Curtis doesn’t realize that in order to have unity, it calls for the simple word ‘we’ rather than the letter ‘I’.)
Involvement and Teamwork will be brought back to Provo City issues.
I have discussed this piece of rhetoric already in the blog post Amplitudo Epitome, under Mr. Curtis’ expectation that he will “find common ground to bridge that which divides us.” [1] There is a great amount of teamwork and involvement in Provo City; not only amongst employees and citizens, but almost amongst elected officials. There are, however, some very well-known feuds between certain Council members, and Mayor Billings has, over time, shown little patience from some elected officials, city employees, and citizens alike. Yet, when we take a step back and look at the entire situation, we can say for a political realm, our problems really are not that bad. Could there be more teamwork? Yes. Could we have more involvement in civic matters from the citizenry and elected officials alike? Most definitely. Can Mr. Curtis come in and magically make everyone work together? Absolutely not. Mr. Curtis can be an example to others, but he cannot force people to become involved or to work in teams. For him to say these attributes “will be brought back into Provo City issues” is, once again, an empty promise that may possibly never come to fruition. Mr. Curtis and this community should realize, more than any other people, that people have their individual agency to act as they please, and there is nothing Mr. Curtis can do to change that. People of Provo, he CANNOT promise you that involvement and teamwork will be at the center of issues in our City, only individuals can bring these attributes to the table.
Treat all 38 neighborhoods with respect giving each the time and tools they need to succeed.
I find this statement not only confusing by highly ambiguous. Who is saying that we are not treating our neighborhoods with ‘respect’? Maybe Mr. Curtis is considering neighborhoods where he deems the big, bad City is implementing zoning restrictions in order to save deteriorating neighborhoods from ruin. Yet I am not opposed at the City giving ‘time’ to the neighborhoods, because that is why the City is present in the first place: to take care of the citizenry. Yet what type of ‘tools’ is Mr. Curtis talking about? This is yet another ambiguous talking point that could easily equate to placing more financial pressure on our very weak budget. The current state of our budget, including its long-term revenue sources, will not stand up to the pressures of increased services, training, equipment, and ‘tools’ that Mr. Curtis seeks to implement. It would be similar to having a 1,000 pound sumo wrestler standing on the shoulders of a 90-year old woman with osteoporosis. Our budget cannot tolerate the high financial weight of his ambitious and ambiguous plans.
Also, I’m sure Mr. Curtis would fire back that he believes we shouldn’t be giving all of our attention to select neighborhoods. He stated during a debate that he felt we needed to give the same time and attention to all neighborhoods, not just some select few that are currently receiving a high amount of attention. Some may nod their head in approval to this statement, but I consider it quite hilarious. Neighborhoods are, in many ways, like people. They are living, breathing appendages of our community; when one is not working correctly or has societal ills within it, the rest of the neighborhoods suffer as a result. Steve Clark sums up this point very well when he has stated: We are only as strong as our weakest neighborhood. Yet Mr. Curtis seems to think that we need to give all the neighborhoods the same amount of attention (as if they could become jealous and throw a temper tantrum). Mr. Curtis’ plan would be similar to a doctor giving the same amount of attention to a perfectly healthy patient as he does to a patient with terminal cancer. The fact of the matter is that some neighborhoods need more attention than others; some neighborhoods are old while others are new, and the older neighborhoods generally have more infrastructure, social, and financial troubles than new, bustling neighborhoods. There is no EOE when it comes to neighborhoods: you find the problems, gather the information needed, and then triage the problem until it is gone.
Promote a Partnership with BYU and others to find win-win solutions for parking and student housing.
Mr. Curtis really does not get it when BYU is thrown into the mix. The current situation with parking and student housing is NOT an issue that the City of Provo can fix without considerable trouble from both school administration and the student body. This is because the situation was created by BYU, NOT the City of Provo. The slight oversight Mr. Curtis has when it comes to BYU is that the current 2-mile radius of approved housing was a policy implemented by BYU without consultation or approval from the City of Provo. In fact, BYU has not revisited this policy to make necessary changes to some very large holes in their initial plan. BYU is the key player in this issue, and if BYU doesn’t want to make any changes to their current methods and system of approved housing, then the City of Provo is simply along for the ride. The City could implement stricter zoning codes and regulations within the 2-mile radius, but this would only cause further contention between the student body and the City.
Mr. Curtis wants you to think that he will be able to sit down with BYU officials and find “win-win” solutions to the entire housing/parking debacle that has plagued this City for decades. What he doesn’t realize is that we have two very different entities (the City of Provo and BYU) with two very different missions (Provo wants stable, family-friendly neighborhoods; BYU wants housing for their students in any way, shape, or form, as long as it is ‘approved’). The likelihood of these two entities meeting on common ground is not very likely, as the easiest way for this situation to come to an amiable conclusion is for BYU to take the initiative to provide more ground rules on housing quality. Since the neighborhoods affected by the 2-mile radius will continue to have disproportionate amounts of students when compared to owner-occupants, thereby detracting from the single-family neighborhood, there really never can be a true “win-win” situation. Mr. Curtis may try to tell you that he will establish a SCAMP development, but since multiple attempts have failed, using nearly every methodology imaginable, his promises will likely fall flat.
[1] http://whoisjohncurtis.blogspot.com/2009/10/amplitudo-epitome.html
