March 9, 2010

As the one who has introduced the idea of Community Sustainability Planning to City Council in recent meetings, I see a need to chime in and provide further clarification in response to the reporting in order to continue this discussion in a productive light:

1. Sustainability does not equal Environmentalism nor is it a disguise for the City to impose more regulation. I tried to explain the four Sustainability Principles to the audience (including Council) at the last Council meeting in order to emphasize that it is not only understanding the impact of what we do to the Earth (deplete, dump, degrade) but that there needs to be a balance with adequately meeting human needs. This point seemed to have been lost with the focus on the environmental part  which makes it a seriously unsustainable predicament. Please note that I responded to Councilmember Edwards’ example of the smelt controversy in the San Jonquin Valley (with the decision to shut off irrigation to agricultural lands) as NOT a sustainable solution, because that fourth principle (human needs) was violated. This is the creative tension that I alluded to that helps us come to creative solutions that ‘pass’ all four principles. The example of camping to the scouts in the audience could have gone further (if I truly prepared for the opportunity) by describing that adequate shelter and food need to be provided to all members of the party and that the experience should leave no trace (pack in, pack out).
2. We are at the very beginning of the discussion and I continue to remind myself that there is a huge learning curve with not only City Council but the community. One of the lessons learned  by other communities that have gone through this process is that it is not only a destination (a plan) but a journey (process) – and the community needs to embrace this by participating throughout that journey. To that end, the point to emphasize is that this initiative is community owned, and that will be done through community-wide visioning and the formation of a Citizen Advisory Group to work with the City through the process.
3. I need to offer my interpretation of Councilmember Cattin’s comment regarding the proposal. Gerard is very respectful and methodical in his analysis of all proposals before us, and if you actually listen to his response at the last meeting, he explains how he originally thought that it was about environmentalism but now he sees the holistic nature of the framework and the value in community engagement. His comment that he was willing to try it is typical of anyone who still needs to understand the mechanics of the process and see success before commitment, which is where most of the Council is – and will be my primary goal with this process as we apply it to the local economy.
4. What I have presented to Council at the retreat and the last meeting is just a proposal and therefore, any ideas of process, activities and governance are being reworked as we discuss the best approach for Duvall.  There is still a lot to impart to everyone, and we are working on the plan to engage the community in the most valuable and productive way. I hope you will allow me to continue this discussion with an article in the near future when we have a game plan.

Respectfully submitted,

Elizabeth Walker

Duvall City Council Position 3