Stuff and Fluff

Alert reader Pete Jacobsen e-mailed me on Monday, reviewing the “Challenges” section at the end of the VisionPDX document and pointing out some significant assumptions and serious concerns in them. I replied that in documents like this, the numbered Vision statements are the part that counts… particularly when the public is given only two days to review a proposal. The rest – the citizen comments, the questions at the end, the introduction and background, are considered “legislative intent”. The numbered goal statements count most for implementation.

Pete suggests a distinction should be made between Stuff and Fluff. Official documents should be color-coded, like Red/Blue states, so citizens know which parts should take most of our attention. Stuff in red, focus on this. Fluff in blue (or aqua, even) – good to know, but not as vital.

This concept is familiar to neighborhood land use volunteers, in particular, because although the Zoning Code isn’t color coded, the important parts in Land Use Reviews are labeled “Approval Criteria”. That’s the Stuff you have to focus on in talking about an application to the planner or Hearings Officer. Other parts of the Code, the Standards, are Fluff during land use reviews. They’re important to some people at some stage, of course – indeed in that example, after approval of the project the Standards turn into Stuff that the reviewers in the Bureau of Development Services have to pay attention to. But I’ve found one attribute of successful land use advocates is their ability to avoid being sidetracked by Fluff during decision-making processes.

In general, citizen activists should try to focus on the Stuff, not the Fluff, as much as possible. If for no other reason than if you only have three minutes at the microphone, or even less, you don’t have time to talk about Fluff.

In VisionPDX, the numbered goals are the Stuff. They are the part that matters, that future decision-makers will use as the basis for Comprehensive Plan changes and implementation/funding choices. These parts matter most.

The rest is Fluff. It gives readers and leaders information about the “legislative intent” helping to formulate the really important Stuff. But advocates in the future won’t be able to point to one of the citizen comments incorporated into the VisionPDX document, and say, “See, decision-makers? You have to do what this person said, because it’s in the document”. The answer would be, “No, if that comment was really important, it would have been incorporated in the goals. There’s nothing in the numbered goals that says we should implement that viewpoint.” So if you plan to contact City Council members today, or testify tonight, focus on the Stuff in the numbered goals. Perhaps if the Councilmen hear enough concerns about several aspects of the proposed goals, they’ll realize the Fluff of good public process is actually the way great Stuff is formulated, and choose to postpone acceptance of the document pending adequate time for review by citizens.

In the first week of this blog, way back in January, I posted a semi-humorous proposal for Transparent Public Process. In it, I suggested City Council should designate every public hearing as Type A, B, or C, depending on whether the decision is already made and if it’s worth citizens’ time to show up to testify. I expanded on that thought in More on Public Process. I’m going to City Council this evening in the hope that amendments to the Stuff in the VisionPDX are possible, even at this stage of the process. Part of my “Vision” for the Portland City Council in the future, is one where citizens don’t have to guess what is Stuff and what Fluff, or whether their opinion about either matters at all.