Once upon a time, two tiny rural communities elected three of their own to represent them in the state- mandated endeavor of planning for the community's future growth and development. In each town one of the elected commissioners spoke to friends of an uneasiness over the fact that the community was so beautiful that it was time to "lower the boat" and facilitate others coming in to enjoy the benefits. Another commissioner in each town expressed embarrassment over the fact that the community offered no public toilets for bicyclists.

However, in town A, the commissioners left their personal feelings at the door of the meeting hall, listened to the wishes of their constituents, and developed a modest plan that complied with the mandate and reflected the wishes of the majority of the taxpayers in that community. Personal uneasiness and embarrassment played no part in the decision-making and everybody won.

Meanwhile, in town B, the commissioners (perhaps seeking to assuage personal feelings of guilt and embarrassment) limited community input, trivialized disagreement as "unruliness," and pushed through an expensive, professionally designed plan that went well beyond compliance, threatened much of the community and polarized its citizens.

Has personal uneasiness and embarrassment been assuaged?
Perhaps, but in town B there are no winners.
Carol Lavender-Willison
Tahuya