Ten Pillars and a Handful of Cheap Shots

By: Mr. Wilson on February 19, 2007
1 comment
Ron Cerny and Jose J. Soto share their alternate vision for Lincoln's future in today's Journal Star. Why not just build off of the 2015 Vision Group's work? Because Cerny and Soto view the Group with "concern, trepidation and suspicion". They allege that the Group's vision positions "the broader needs of the community ... subservient to the wishes of a few, which advance the interests of fewer, at the expense of the community at large." Ouch. Cerny and Soto charge that the Vision Group's intent is to turn Lincoln into an "Omaha, or Indianapolis, or Kansas City". They further insist that "Lincoln's future does not reside solely in the realms of entertainment, college youth and downtown". (A bit of a straw man, but that is a concern the 2015 Vision Group needs to more actively address.) They propose their own ten pillars for Lincoln's future on the grounds that "moving ahead on Vision 2015 without addressing extant social needs is like ladling on the gravy before serving the potatoes." Their ten pillars are:
  1. [P-12] Education
  2. Childcare
  3. [Public] Transportation
  4. Serving the underserved
  5. Teen Community Center
  6. Long-range street planning
  7. Parks and trails
  8. Citywide wireless
  9. Interactive/inclusive government
  10. Your ideas
Under each pillar, Cerny and Soto offer a brief explanation of what they mean. Unfortunately, their brief explanations are not nearly enough to clarify their thoughts. I would love to see Cerny and Soto expand on each of their pillars. In the end, though, I suspect many members of the 2015 Vision Group are giving Cerny and Soto the finger this morning. And who can blame them after reading paragraphs like this?
Residents impacted by the decisions of government, business and civic leaders should be the ones dictating Lincoln's future, a privilege that should not be abdicated to, nor usurped by, a handful of residents. A community vision, demands community input.
Yeesh, that's vile stuff. Whether or not you like the 2015 Vision Group and/or its pillars, Cerny and Soto are clearly being unfair here. Likewise in their closing sentence:
We must all participate in creating the 20/20 Vision of our future, and we cannot allow a "them" vs. "us" mentality to jeopardize an enhanced quality of life for everyone.
The "them vs. us" mentality originates with Cerny and Soto. The 2015 Vision Group has gone out of its way to offer participation opportunities for all Lincolnites, and their efforts have only just begun. (Whether or not they listen to the input they receive will be seen in the coming months.) I wonder if Cerny and Soto are willing to go to the trouble to subject their ideas to the same scrutiny? And I wonder if Cerny and Soto bothered to try to work with the 2015 Vision Group before penning such a divisive piece? I have no problem at all with folks proposing "2015 visions" of their own. In fact, I encourage it. (I suspect the 2015 Vision Group does as well.) But this piece is so laden with put-downs and the very "them vs. us" mentality that the authors condemn, that it is very difficult to judge their ideas on their merits. The authors would do well to bury the hatchet and try to work with or parallel to the 2015 Vision Group, rather than trying to improve the community with ten pillars and a handful of cheap shots.

Comments

See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.

Mr. T
February 20, 2007 at 5:15AM

I interpreted the Cerny/Soto piece very differently from you.

Yes, I agree that no one likes naysayers who are naysaying for the sake of it. And yes, some of the choice of words used are definitely jabs (it is arguable whether those jabs are justified or not)

Share your thoughts with the community.

Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.