We love the vision of the “people streets” project that the City of Bend is currently exploring: more room for people, rather than their gigantic vehicles of steel and glass, to roam the public spaces of the city. But while we think the notion of limiting — or even completely closing — certain streets in downtown Bend and the Bend Central District could be a good thing, we have some concerns about the process. Our issues stem from the attempts at buy-in — or lack thereof — from the business community most affected by the changes.
When the Downtown Bend Business Association in 2021 first proposed a pedestrian plaza on Minnesota Avenue, we were in support. We liked the notion, touted by DBBA then-president Mindy Aisling, that the plaza could be a win-win for citizens and businesses, because, as Aisling detailed back then, pedestrian zones can encourage people to stay longer and shop more, and can attract more tourists to the area. Plus, they’re just nice places to be.
When the DBBA later switched positions after hearing from local businesses concerned about parking shortages and delivery headaches, we were disappointed to hear of the reversal. Somehow, the cities that have implemented pedestrian zones have managed to overcome those hurdles and fostered a vibrant cityscape at the same time. Bend should be able to produce the same results.
Now, with the new people streets project afoot, it seems the business community has other complaints about the project. These concerns seem valid.
For one, as current DBBA President McKenna Mikesell told the Source Weekly, the organization was left out of the conversation around the people streets project until it was presented a case study about the project in September.
Furthermore, when the City put together a steering committee to develop that case study, it managed to consider the need to include “people from historically underserved groups and equity-based organizations” — nothing wrong with that — but did not include anyone from the DBBA. With the DBBA’s position on pedestrianized zones being decidedly “no,” maybe it’s not entirely shocking that the City would try to move forward without that opposing voice.
But that’s not how a government by the people, for the people is supposed to work. When developing policies or programs that will directly affect a certain set of people, those people should be invited to the table. Even in a bureaucratic pond as small as a city government of Bend, effort should be made to avoid an autocratic style of governing that dictates from on high. It’s essential to gain input and buy-in from those who might not agree with your plan.
This week, representatives from the City plan to have a “reset” meeting with the DBBA to discuss the people streets concept. The DBBA should come to that meeting ready to hear the pros and cons of the projects. But so, too, should representatives from the City come with an open mind and a willingness to hear the concerns of the business community. In a world where polarization is rampant and people choose their media outlets, and even their friends, based on who shares their worldview, setting a better example is the very least the two sides should offer each other.
This article appears in The Source Weekly December 5, 2024.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
The DBBA (CORA, COBA etc.) are not “people” in the “government by the people, for the people” sense. Inclusion of these acronymic groups might lead to corporatocracy as opposed to cloaking autocratic decisions (from on high) in citizen committees and work groups. Either way is not classic democracy.