In the course of my travels, I occasionally have a moment of sudden awareness that puts everything before it and all that comes after it into alignment with something I realize I have always known, but somehow forgot. Oprah calls it the “aha” moment. I have also heard it described as “satori” in the Zen tradition.
Today’s satori arrived with a review of my recent responses to Jim Mitchell’s Farmington Observer column. The writing of those words proved far more satisfying than the reading of them. Had my words been focused on the issues, I would have resonated with them even after the fact. Instead, I now see a more ego-based obsession with being “right.” And as we have established, right and wrong are irrelevant. So absent the ego, my greatest concern about the Great Streetscape Divide in our community must become what will reduce it and what might even heal it.
Consider this: A vote on August 5 will not stop or mandate change, but only alter its trajectory. Streetscape opponents will likely be infuriated to see the project moving forward in some fashion; streetscape supporters will remain frustrated by having to start from scratch yet again. But neither side will win. So if not victory, what does this battle in which we are engaged accomplish?
We could try to measure by counting up the letters flying back and forth or the yard signs or the campaign contributions, but it makes more sense to look at the question itself. We are faced with an up or down vote on money and the way that money is spent. Yes, folks, we may believe we are arguing ideals and values and lofty ambitions, but this fight centers around money – who spends it, how it is spent, who benefits, who sacrifices, and ego – who decides, whose idea is best, who gets control.
And therein lies the revelation: I have angered and separated myself from many of my neighbors and friends over money and my need to be “right.” I might think that I’ve won the occasional argument, but have I really? Or have I simply so offended the other party that he or she has simply withdrawn from participation?
My point (and as Ellen Degeneres says, I do have one) is that before and after August 5, we are a community. We all choose to live in close proximity to one another, we love our neighborhoods. We all have our own reasons for staying. And all our contributions have value.
As George H pointed out, in order to come to a resolution of differences, each party has to see some value in the other’s position. I would take that a step further: The parties have to see value in one another. Recognizing the right of each citizen to pursue his or her own vision for the community pulls us back to discussing those visions, rather than judging and dismissing. “Value” also presents itself in our collective commitment to choosing this community over all others. It lies in our willingness to pay a premium to live here, because we all do, even those of us who rent could live more cheaply elsewhere. Simply put, we are HERE, not anywhere else. This is home, our shared space. And collectively, we are about to make a decision in the best possible way, by a vote of the people.
Today, the post-election response has no value, nor does the history of this contentious process. Today, the streetscape does not exist and we are not paying the taxes to fund it. Today, no one is in control over how the money is spent or whether it is spent at all. And so what matters today is our community, and that we are kind to one another and that our actions and our words serve the greater good.
–Joni Hubred-Golden
Michigan Woman Blogger
