Marin Independent Journal  Sunday  July 16, 1989

OPINION

Uneasy politics of change

By Brent Dickens

 

Brent Dickens is managing principal of  Dickens  Ar­chitecture and Planning of San Rafael

 

 

      We enter this world kicking and screaming as we’re dragged from the warmth and comfort of our mother’s womb.

    Suspended in all that fluid, it’s para­dise; given a choice, few of us would have left.

    It seems we all learn to fear change, even before birth. Though life and growth require change, transition and risk, few of us are capable of understand­ing this very well.

    As adults, through our unique political system, democratic choices and changes are offered to us. Most of us aren’t equipped to deal with the really tough stuff. But the majority rules; decisions are made. Seldom are they the best (or worst), but they’re OK and we get by. Mediocrity and compromise are the rule. Maybe sufficiency is achieved if we’re lucky.

    When a person comes up with a really good idea, it’s not good enough to focus on the refinement and implementation of the idea. Rather, our system requires that the focus be placed on persuading the majority to like that idea.

    The initial time, energy and money ex­pended doesn’t really benefit anyone very much, and actually dilutes the im­pact of the idea. This is obviously frustrating and inef­ficient, but a necessity of the democratic process.

    Most of us look upon any change with suspicion. When changes are tendered to us, resistance is the first reaction unless that change reinstates a previously known condition, like a doctor does when he tries to make us well. But in the development business, when proposed changes are highly visible and long-last­ing, we really dig in to resist.

    When concrete sidewalks first en­croach into rural areas, people get agitat­ed. A neighbor wants to expand his house — what nerve! And when a devel­oper plans to build structures on green fields, that’s war!

    It seems now that we all possess demo­cratic entitlement to leave things alone. The kickers and screamers now have a vote and the status qua is a sanctuary.

   

     The accumulation of years of medioc­rity and compromise do take their toll, and commute traffic on Highway 101 is a component. Significant improvement to this situation will require a dramatic and focused change — hard to come by with­in our system.

    Farsighted planners look for big events to resolve and improve longstanding community deficiencies. The big events behind the momentum of positive ideas can yield sweeping and widespread benefits. We’re all benefactors of great change, but it has never come willingly.

    The Hamilton Field project was a historic, big-event opportunity. Mourn it not for the loss of the proposed transpor­tation center, road improvements and jobs-housing mix, which could have helped leverage significant countywide improvements. But rather the real loss is the time, en­ergy and money expended and stifled that could have fueled excellence; the - thwarted efforts that should have achieved man’s creative potential. Once more an ignited spirit is doused and imaginative vision unrewarded. The resulting plight is what we deserve. 

     Sure, there are risks. Of course, change doesn’t occur without them and he who makes no mistakes does nothing. But the visionaries see change as a positive goal and we owe much to the dedicated focus of a precious few individuals who can im­plement great enhancement of our hu­man condition.

    Their numbers are diminishing all the time, becoming as rare as other Ameri­can species as the public treatment has­tens their extinction.

    Why won’t we any longer let attain­ment be realized? It’s all too simple: The singular decisiveness required to do a great deed offends the status quo and the threat of change is not revered by the majority. That’s democracy.