Exploring Rural Development: A Tale of Two Communities, Part III
Posted on | May 10, 2010 | 2 Comments
Ask … and you shall receive! Below is Part III of a three-part guest series exploring community development and its impacts. Thanks to a reader’s suggestion, photos of both communities have been included. Read on to discover the common-sense – yet often overlooked – lessons these communities offer. Click on the following links to read Part I and Part II. As always, comments and feedback are invited!
***
A Tale of Two Communities, Part III
By Peter MacGibbon
So … what does the ‘tale of two communities’ tell us as researchers, practitioners and – finally – as residents of rurban areas, a designation that implies not only change, but a responsibility to manage wisely the opportunities afforded those rural communities that stand to benefit (or suffer) from proximity to a major Canadian city?
The lessons learned from comparing the vision and process for developing Community Centres in Chelsea and Wakefield are numerous. Some are so obvious that it’s easy in hindsight to shake one’s head in disbelief. Others are more subtle and would have required wiser leadership from the very beginning. However, the major difference between the two projects has been the willingness (or lack thereof) to understand and recognize the stake of the community as a whole in the process, to listen carefully to all of the issues raised, and to respond to those concerns in meaningful and respectful ways.
Know your community.
Understand its geography and demography, and know which locations are likely to attract resident’s activities and for what. Recognize the fact that many will have a different vision for the community that will be less prominent than the one forwarded by developers who have a constant stake in turning a profit. (This, rather than any doubtful collaborative advantage that the artsies up in Wakefield might inherently have over jocks, has been the crux of the dividing issue in Chelsea.)
Understand how seemingly peripheral issues such as previous tax increases and lack of essential services will undermine a vision that doesn’t acknowledge them. Read the public mood and listen to what people are saying. Never dismiss “squeaky wheels” in favour of some unproven silent majority. (In general, Canadians are not moved to argue an issue unless they really believe in its importance.)
Engage everyone.
This means informing people every step of the way, ideally beginning through a demonstration of public buy-in, both real and symbolic, to the basic idea (such as Wakefield Co-op’s membership campaign). 
Look at previous successes in community branding and build on them. Chelsea established itself as an environmentally-innovative community in the 1990’s when it became the first North American municipality to ban outright the use of pesticide and herbicide sprays. That progressive image has significantly faded now that the community is better known as a battleground for developments conceived and pushed through from behind Council doors.
Involve legitimate stakeholders from a cross-section of the community, not just politicians or a “leader” chosen by them. Take the time to explore alternative visions until the community can arrive at one that it feels truly comfortable with, even if that vision seems less ambitious than the one that the leadership would like.
Avoid “house-of-cards” planning.
Tying the main project to a string of pre-requisite developments leaves it vulnerable if one or more of them should fail or be un-popularly received. 
Chelsea’s Community Centre plan was predicated on the construction of a sewage system for its so-called “downtown” core, which in turn was supposedly to be paid for by the construction of a new high-density housing development, itself hotly contested by local residents in a referendum that ended with the tie-breaking vote being cast by - guess who? - the mayor. Thus, the project focus shifted from the community it was meant to serve, to a business plan that had to be accommodated at all costs.
Play fair.
Communities (much like nations) don’t enjoy being told there is a whole new status quo based on the fickle results of a few votes swinging one way or the other. Democracy does not mean “winner takes all,” and it looks especially bad if the winner then sets about trying to silence all further opposition to its divisive practices. This behaviour is not only bad public form, but it will inevitably come back to haunt the winner when Murphy’s Law kicks in and things go wrong.
For instance, the soil quality of the much-ballyhooed private land donated to Chelsea for its Community Centre was not properly assessed before the project budget was set. Now, the Centre will require a minimum of $1 million dollars’ worth of additional reinforcement to the building’s foundation, which may be the first of many hidden costs coming to light. As of this writing, the Chelsea Foundation had not met the pre-conditions set by the provincial and federal funders of the project, with not one dollar forthcoming, nor one shovelful of construction earth overturned. Planned changes to the Centre’s design have not been made public, and no more community consultations will be held.
The Wakefield-La Pêche Community Centre Cooperative, meanwhile, just signed its agreement to receive its promised federal/provincial funding, 
and plans to break ground on the construction project a month from now. Unforeseen shortfalls for paying for landscaping and interior furnishings will be covered by donated time, skills, and materials from within the community. For Wakefield, it’s been a long, hard road, but the extra work is paying off.
For the record, I myself have lived in Chelsea for 15 years, but my spiritual home is Wakefield, and I’m fortunate to live close enough to spend my social time there. Guess whose Community Centre I’ll be using …
***
Photo Credits: River Echo, Peter Ellis
Related Posts:
Tags: Chelsea > exploring rural development > lessons > rural > rurban > Wakefield
Comments
2 Responses to “Exploring Rural Development: A Tale of Two Communities, Part III”
Leave a Reply
About
Community development, growth and communication in the rural-urban fringe landscape.
Subscribe to my feed
Search
Connect With Me
Recommended Reads
Support
December 17th, 2010 @ 3:17 am
[...] Part II and III of this series are now posted here and here. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the [...]
May 31st, 2011 @ 9:14 am
[...] Rural Development: A Tale of Two Communities – Part I, Part II and Part III (originally published April 23, 2010; April 30, 2010; May 10, [...]