Bike Trails to Build Community

I just got back from a tour of three great bike trails in Michigan and I came away excited about the opportunity for Owosso to promote tourism, strengthen our downtown, provide healthy recreation, bring the region together, and even promote early childhood learning. In three days, I biked the Hart-Montague Trail, Michigan's oldest rails-to-trails conversion, the Betsie River Trail that ties Frankfort, Elberta, and Beulah together, and the TART trail that is a centerpiece in Traverse City. Besides a sore rear end, I gained an appreciation of how good design and thoughtful planning can take advantage of these regional trails to build community.

All of the trails we rode are at least 15 miles long and attract a range of users. We saw other tourists like ourselves who purposefully travelled to bike the trails, locals out for exercise, kids on their way to somewhere, moms with strollers, and maybe even a commuter. We shared the trail with other bikers, runners, in-line skaters, and walkers. We saw solo folks with headphones, families on an outing, and friends talking away as they walked. These trails are used by a wide variety of people.

As we visited with folks, everyone spoke highly of the trails and their benefit to the community. One person shared with us how the trail had been opposed initially, but was now widely supported. Increased crime, use by a "bad element," or other fears had not materialized. All of the cities, and many of the businesses, along the trail had built special paths and installed directional signs to attract users to make a detour off the trail. Clearly, the communities along the trails value the economic development opportunities the trails create.

We were impressed with how the cities of Frankfort, Montague, and Whitehall had linked the trail to their downtowns. In Hart, one end of the trail was extended to link it to a municipal park and campground. Traverse City is located at the center of the TART trail and pulls people in from multiple directions. At the south end of the Hart-Montague Trail, a new trail extension, signs, public art, and attractive plantings pulled us into downtown Whitehall where we did some shopping. As we explored further, we learned that the City had used state grants, downtown tax increment funds, and local school funds to extend the trail through town to a park, library, and the high school. They also had a special stretch of the trails where families could take along pre-schoolers and stop at special stations where they could interact with their children and aid in their development. These trails provide a wide array of benefits.

Owosso has the opportunity to replicate these community development successes. First, we have an existing and long-standing trail along our riverfront that connects to Corunna. We can build on the foresightful work of our predecessors that put the James Miner Trail in place. Second, a significant trail is being developed that will run from Ionia to St. Johns to just outside Owosso. Finally, there have been discussions about developing a trail from Corunna to Durand, that if linked to the Miner Trail could provide a trail connection between the Grand Trunk Depot and the Steam Railroading Institute. I believe there are four steps we should take as a community and a region:

1. Protect and improve the James Miner Trail between Owosso and Corunna in conjunction with Caledonia Township and the Owosso Community Airport;

2. Support the completion of the Clinton-Ionia-Shiawassee Trail and come up with a plan with Owosso Township to finish, extend, and connect the trail into downtown Owosso;

3. Work with other local governments and community groups to investigate the options for converting to a trail the abandoned rail line between Owosso, Corunna, and Durand;

4. Develop effective signage and other publicity to promote the use of the trail by both tourists and locals in the community.

None of this is easy. It will require planning, cooperation between jurisdictions, partnerships with community groups, and the raising of both private and public funds. However, if communities smaller than ours in northwest Michigan can realize the development of such great trails, I am convinced that Owosso and our neighbors could pull it off as well. In the end, it will help build our community.

How Best to get a Public Opinion

I want to ask your opinion about asking your opinion. Since before I was elected, I have sought out public input through this blog, a facebook page, e-mail updates, and purposeful encounters with the electorate. Seven months into my tour of service I have come to appreciate the questions, suggestions, and feedback. However, the June 21 meeting of the Owosso City Council has raised some questions for me about the role of public opinion in local government.

You may have been at the meeting, or read about the big discussion of the plan of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) to convert south M-52 to a three lane highway. MDOT has proceeded with this plan because of a request from the City of Owosso several years ago, and because their experience has shown that single lane roads with a center turn lane are safer than highways with two lanes in each direction. However, there has been a large and vociferous expression of public opinion in Owosso against this plan, and the City Council voted 4-3 to request MDOT to keep M-52 a four-lane road. The final decision will be MDOT’s to make.

I voted against this recommendation, but I support the decision of the Council. Since then, I have been thinking a lot about my role as your representative and how to best consider public opinion. I think there are four key choices to be made, or balances to be achieved, and I welcome your input on any or all of them.

Expert Opinion versus Popular Opinion. The difference between these two was stark on the issue of M-52’s restriping. The meeting started with a traffic safety engineer from MDOT presenting data and analysis showing three lanes would result in 25 to 40 percent less accidents and would do so without any decline in level of service (i.e. no backups or delays. Her professional opinion from 14 years of experience was in favor of the three lane idea. Popular opinion was contrary and strong, with over 20 people making public comments against the three-lane proposal. The choice was clear: listen to the informed, expert opinion or go with the frequently expressed opinion of Owosso voters.

As a City Council representative, I find this kind of choice difficult. I believe that my job is to make decisions that are in the best interest of the City, and when a large number of people speak out against (or for) a policy, I want to heed their will. On the other hand, I know that many of the issues we face are complex, with significant financial, legal, or technical issues to consider. For this reason, I tend to give weight to comments made by informed experts, whether that be our experienced City Manager, legally trained City Attorney, or MDOT traffic engineer. Likewise, I tend to give extra attention to testimony made by members of the public when they clearly have experience with an issue. For instance, I listen closely to a youth baseball coach when upgrades to our ball fields are being considered. But how much weight should we give to one expert as opposed to the input of many interested voters?

Direct Democracy versus Representative Government. The idea that everyone has a voice is a bedrock of American democracy and the right to vote. Since we cherish the right to vote, there is a popular idea that key local issues should be put to a vote of the public. Someone suggested that the M-52 lane decision be on the ballot, there have been letters to the editor suggesting that all tax and fee increases be voted on by the public, and there is strong public opinion that any change in burning regulations be put to a vote.

What local issues should be voted on? Or, if it were possible to take a poll on every issue, how should the results be used? On the M-52 issue, it was suggested that the results of a Facebook query should guide the City Council decision. Small local governments in New England still use a town hall meeting, where all voters in attendance at an annual meeting are given a vote to approve the budget and make key decisions. If public opinion should carry the day on local decisions, what is the most effective and equitable way to measure that public opinion?

When I was younger I lived in California and was excited about the use there of ballot measures to decide matters of public policy. At the local level, the propositions on each ballot were given a letter starting with “A” and one time we got to vote on Propostions X, Y, Z, and AA. Quickly, not only did the number of decisions become overwhelming. I also learned that local and state governments had difficulties responding to changing circumstance, because laws adopted as a ballot proposition could only be modified or repealed by another vote.

Instead of lots of public votes, Michigan laws and Owosso practice tilt toward representative democracy. That is, the local electorate chooses seven City Council members who are given the job of making decisions for the entire community. As your representatives, we take the time to read a lengthy board packet of material twice a month, conduct additional research on issues, attend meetings and listen to public testimony. We take into consideration a variety of opinions, and try and make a decision that we believe to be in the best interest of the community. We are not required to poll the citizens, or give every voice equal weight, or even listen to input outside of meetings. But all of us value public input. The questions are two: how do we best get input? And what should we do with the input we get (especially when it conflicts)?

Voiced Opinion versus the Interests of the Unrepresented. I am committed to the idea that public input is desirable and necessary, but am not sure how best to determine the will of the electorate. Or do we need to seek it out at all? City Council meetings are open and the public is given the opportunity to speak both at the beginning and the end of the meeting (although State law only calls for one place on the agenda for input). In addition, certain actions require a public hearing to be held. Are these comment periods sufficient opportunity for public input, or should we seek out more?

Over 20 people spoke at the meeting when we considered the M-52 issue, and all of them spoke in favor of keeping the highway at four lanes. It was pointed out that there are thousands more residents in Owosso that did not speak; do we need to try and guess at their interests? I heard from several people who favored the three-lane proposal, but who did not speak at the meeting; should we consider their opinion? In addition, several people who spoke at the meeting reported that they did not live in Owosso, but they had businesses or owned property in the City. Should we consider their opinion more or less than an Owosso voter? What about those who do not know they have an interest in the issue or cannot speak? In this case, who is speaking for the victims of automobile accidents that might be prevented? In other cases, such as investments in our water system, who is speaking for the future residents of Owosso, who may not even be born yet?

Quantity versus Quality. The final balancing to consider is between the volume of public opinion and the content of the input provided. When a lot of people speak out on an issue, and speak out forcefully, I take notice. If people care enough about an issue to take time to come to a City Council meeting, we should listen to what they have to say. At the June 21 meeting, the Council voted to extend the 30 minutes normally allotted to public comment so that everyone would have an opportunity to be heard. On the other hand, when opinions are repeated frequently they start to become statistics, with so many “for” and so many “against.” How much public testimony is enough?

Typically, at public hearings I find myself listening for new information, novel arguments, or a perspective not yet shared. While I welcome all public input, I find a conversation with a voter more valuable than a brief comment or a long harangue. If several people are involved in the give and take of an extended dialogue on a topic, I tend to learn more about an issue. My recent invitation to “Walk and Talks” on the day of City Council meetings have produced some good discussions; interestingly the one on June 21 had people favoring a three-lane approach.

None of Us Alone is as Smart as All of Us Together. In the end, as I think about public opinion, I come back to a commitment to open, representative democracy and a belief in the wisdom of teams. I think it unworkable, and probably unwise, to put every issue up to a public vote or for the City Council to depend solely on the counting of public opinions. The democratic process that chooses seven people to make decisions for the entire City has proven to be a good method for soliciting, weighing, and evaluating public opinion. However, the process only works well if every elected official is open to receiving input from a variety of viewpoints, and if they are committed to listening with an open mind to that input. I believe that the members of the current City Council have this commitment.

Importantly, each Councilmember comes from a different background and has a unique set of acquaintances and a network of contacts. Sometimes the uniqueness of a councilmember comes through as an individual bias for or against certain public policy issues. However, with seven representatives soliciting input and measuring public attitudes, we are likely to get not only a variety of voices, but a variety of perspectives from which to evaluate the opinion of the public. Most importantly, the success of representative democracy depends on the willingness of the seven member of the City Council to honestly share their interpretations of the public interest and to debate one another on the merits of the issue. It also requires a councilmember to recognize that they are sometimes wrong in their decision, or at least be willing to accept the decision of the majority.

In the end, and most of the time, I believe the shared decision-making responsibility of our local government both reflects well on the full range of opinion and serves the best interest of Owosso. I believe that the present City Council desires to represent all of the public fairly and, most importantly, wants to serve well the future of our community.

Your Opinion Sought. On this, as with all issues, I welcome your input. I have posed several questions, and while I have tried to answer some of them, I am interested in your opinion. How should the Council best gauge the public interest?