A Public Meeting Re-Run That Would Drive a Proctor and Gamble Executive Crazy
The narrative is pretty clear -- those that show up aren't a fan of changing the Public Square
I am almost hesitant to write anything about the City’s latest meeting on the downtown square project; heaven knows I wouldn’t want to be accused of spreading “false narratives” and having my name splashed on the City’s Facebook Page yet again. You know, that social media site that is more than happy to throw out their own spin, but yet, doesn’t seem to have the courage to allow the opportunity for residents to comment?
Anyway, I attended the May 22nd meeting on the downtown square project, along with about 80 other community residents. It was clear that most of the residents there at that time had some working knowledge of the city’s plans, and I surmised that those in attendance wanted to learn more about the thought processes the city was using to come up with this new plan to dramatically change the downtown.
Earlier that day, I had attended a conference at Edison State Community College for non-profit leaders. The annual Mosaic Conference is a wonderful event where local non-profits come together to learn and talk with one another. This year, attendees were captivated by the morning keynote address given by Shane Meeker, a long-time Proctor and Gamble executive that has the job of being the top storyteller of everyday household products from Dawn dish soap to Tide laundry detergent.
If there is anyone that can make a disposable razor or air freshener sound remotely interesting, it’s Shane. For an hour, he went through the components of how to tell a compelling story to get people to understand and eventually want your product.
One of the lessons he taught was that when someone is pitching a product, using the same slide-deck presentation to different groups is generally a bad idea. Each audience is different, and failure to understand the differences with each audience will lead to less than optimal results. It certainly wouldn’t be categorized as a “Best Practice” in the world of marketing or public relations.
It was with that context fresh in mind that I entered the Hobart Arena and signed in. I was promptly given a handout, a Frequently Asked Questions sheet that was obviously put together as a response to the flurry of emails and comments that the city received after the first public meeting.
The first question asked, “What is the scope of the project?” The handout explained that:
The limits of the project are Main Street between Cherry Street and Mulberry Street and Market Street between Franklin Street and Water Street. The existing sidewalk and curb will be replaced. Water lines will be replaced and upsized within the square. The roadway pavement will be resurfaced along with portions of full depth pavement reconstruction. Storm sewer catch basins will be replaced and new catch basins added. The project will also include new pavement markings, lighting improvements, and informational kiosks. Aesthetic enhancements for the sidewalk that are consistent with the recently constructed West Main Street project will also be implemented.
It was after I read that first question and answer and gave greetings to those I was sitting next to, the presentation by the city’s consultants began. I quickly realized that this was pretty much the exact same presentation that was given to downtown business owners last month that was put on the city’s website. Mr. Meeker from Proctor and Gamble would have shaken his head in shame.
Well, by the fourth slide gave an indication to what the consultants believed the goals for the project needed to be:
I scratched my head. The scope of the project I just read from the city hand out gave little if any attention to pedestrian safety; it seemed like an afterthought. I openly thought to myself, “Is this a pedestrian safety project or is this an infrastructure project?”
Well, as the presentation continued, it became clear, it was neither of those — what was being discussed was a traffic project.
The consultants spent time talking about traffic counts, turn radius, truck aprons, and other technical aspects like stacking and queues. At one point, I could swear in response to a suggestion from a resident, the consultant said, “We could look at that, but the "level of service” for traffic in the square would be an F. It might be great for pedestrians, but horrible for traffic.” This isn’t an exact quote, but this covers the essence of the remark. At that point it became clear, this whole project wasn’t about infrastructure, or even about pedestrian safety, it was all about traffic.
After the presentation, most of the crowd started to dwindle away, especially after a thunderstorm rolled through. In the end, only about a dozen residents stayed to look at some of the boards and diagrams that were on display from the city and the consultants.
Downtown Business Owners Speak Out
No one wants downtown to succeed more than our residents. Collectively, we shop and dine downtown, and everyone who lives here knows that downtown is one of the most iconic places that we have. Yet, it seems that it’s those brave men and women that have the most on the line are the ones that are heard from the least.
The comments that came from some of those downtown business owners were that the extra roundabout lane wasn’t necessary. Taking out more green space near the fountain and the flagpole, and replacing both with a truck apron, would do more harm than good. The traffic problems in downtown weren’t necessarily caused by the square, but the true culprit was the new traffic light pattern at the Five-Way Intersection by Walgreens. Parking continues to be a subject that no one wants to address to any real conclusion or with any real seriousness.
But perhaps that most poignant comment came from one business owner who attended the last meeting and pointed out that this presentation was the same that was provided in April and after all the comments that were provided nothing changed over the last month. This business owner asked, “Did anyone comment that they actually liked the plan? Did anyone actually read the comments?”
What’s Next?
So let’s think about where things go from here. The City could have another “public meeting” but if it’s going to just share the same tired presentation that was provided in April and last night, what’s the point of that? To those that observed the proceedings at Hobart Arena, it is becoming clear that the residents of this town are becoming tired of speaking out and not being heard.
In all reality, we all have a strong gut feeling about what’s going to happen. The City will hold their next “engagement” meeting in January 2025 and by then, the plans would have been pretty much set in stone, after the detailed designs are made. Don’t believe me? They said as much at the meeting. Once the first of the year rolls around, does anyone think that the plans are going to change if the project is going to start construction in Spring of 2025?
The City has an opportunity to gain trust by demonstrating that they have actually listened to residents and made substantive changes to the plan being proposed between now and January 2025. The city could easily detail the comments that have been made, make changes to the proposed plan, and demonstrate to the residents that the City is actually listening to residents.
We can only hope.
Let’s have a conversation. What do you think? Are you in favor of the plan? What are some of the things of the plan you like? What are the part of the plans you don’t like? Leave your ideas and insights in the comment section below.
Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Did you know, for less than $1 per week, you can support this effort to bring local news and information directly to you and your neighbors? If you have not considered being a paid subscriber to this effort, please do so. Through your generous paid subscription, you are helping provide this information to our community!
Feel free to share this information! Through informing and educating our community’s stakeholders, we are creating a stronger community. Civic Capacity is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Also, our reader survey for May is looking for responses! Feel free to share your thoughts and ideas, you can access the survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PF6SPPN
Bill, I agree with you. I question whether or not we have chosen the correct firm. As you are aware, the ODA administration pays little attention to the wishes or ideas of the residents of the City of Troy. Before the meeting, I gave Stan Kegley 3 pages of ideas about the project, many reflecting what I heard and agreed with from the last meeting. I doubt very seriously if any of them will be considered. My guess is that the project plans are completed, will not be changed and the ODA administration is just waiting for Spring 2025 to start the traffic project.
I wasn't at the meeting but I drive around the square 4 times a day M-F and I hate the thought of it being more complicated with another lane. I don't mind slowing down or yielding for pedestrians because it's a sign of respect and courtesy for those who are enjoying the downtown on foot. I have little confidence in consultants and traffic engineers who don't live here or have first hand experience of what it's like to drive or walk in our downtown. My two cents.