by Ken Shelin, 10/1/06
Men are inclined to cherish or value different things and therefore may choose differently, and yet all may choose correctly. A good society must be open, tolerant, flexible, and receptive to change.
This statement paraphrases an understanding of the fundamental nature of mankind described by John Locke in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Notes taken by James Madison, our fourth President, during debates associated with our Constitutional Convention of 1787, as well as ideas he included in the Federalist Papers, also incorporate Madison’s understanding that honest and sincere people can come to different conclusions about the same set of facts and still be correct.
Recently, I visited Montpelier, the ancestral home of James Madison in Orange County, Virginia. While there, I purchased an extraordinarily comprehensive biography entitled James Madison written by Ralph Ketcham and published by the University of Virginia Press. Reading it has reminded me that no matter how political conditions and circumstances change, certain principles are timeless. Many of the political issues and principles of government debated at the foundation of our country are especially relevant to the on-going discussions of development and land use in the city of Sarasota.
A fundamental constitutional principle arising from the Constitutional Convention debates was that human rights and property rights complement and buttress one another; neither trumps the other. Even the bicameral design of our Federal Congress is based on the principle that gave a freehold franchise to the upper house and a more “at large” interest to the lower house thereby protecting both the “rights of persons” and the “rights of property.” Our public discussions on land use matters here in Sarasota will only come to a just end if we ensure that every person, whatever their status, whether they be a resident, property owner, businessperson or developer is treated fairly and receives an answer that assures his or her rights. It is simply unfair to do otherwise.
Certainly unanimity is not expected in any great political debate involving significant change and this has been documented repeatedly, especially in the City of Sarasota’s efforts over the years to revive and redevelop its downtown. In such discussions, as Madison said, a spirit of amity and mutual concession is always necessary.
Too often, our public discussions — including the media reporting associated with them — offer only opinions and assertions. Each of us, in my view, has an obligation to expose his or her opinions and assertions to a fair and reasoned discussion which is likely to develop a proof of their validity. Further, our public debates are too often polarized by demonization of those with whom we disagree. Honest disagreement does not mean that the opposing side is wrong, stupid, or evil.
As the City of Sarasota morphs into a more diverse, urbanized, cosmopolitan and dense city, especially downtown and in near downtown neighborhoods, we need to recognize that time will bring change. The excitement of a vibrant city is its variety and differences. It is the juxtaposition of the differences in colors, shapes, sizes and uses which attract our interest and involvement. Sarasota has a downtown core which now attracts increased activity into a very compact area. This compactness is not only a challenge, but is an important asset because it is human scaled. Its scale has much to do with how quickly downtown has turned around from the empty and significantly unsafe era of the 1980s and early 1990s. It is certainly a work in progress because of public transportation and parking challenges that have yet to be met, as well as the lack of significant retail to serve not only our visitors but also the increasing number of residents living in the core. It is getting better and appears headed for even greater improvement.
We need affordable housing downtown. Many say that is unlikely with high land costs. There are tools available to us and actions have already been taken that have laid the foundation for future accomplishments in this area. In spite of multiple meetings and conferences sponsored by public and private organizations in the recent past, nobody has offered a more credible alternative than increased density to overcome high land costs. We need to manage increased density carefully, of course. Rejecting it, however, only increases the dislocation of our human resources in the city and encourages what this community understands better than most – that we need to prevent urban sprawl. The value of density is extensively discussed in land planning literature including Jane Jacobs’ 1961 book entitled The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Jacobs was the first writer in the last half century or so to recognize what caused American cities to die and what was needed to make them alive again. Suburban Nation co-authored in 2000 by Andres Duany has provided the intellectual underpinnings for the new urbanist movement in this country.
Let us celebrate the differences in our community instead of demonizing those with whom we disagree. Let us celebrate the excitement of these differences and the richness they bring to our lives and our city. Let us come together to gain the synergies for our community’s future by cooperating with others whose ideas are different than our own.
As James Madison said - “government that can overcome pettiness and give effect to the general and permanent good of the community finds safety in a multiplicity of forces.”
Posted by kenshelin 
