TO THE EDITOR:
Last week’s editorial “Chapel Hill 2020, this decade: Petition to delay development plan’s release is misguided” seems to have an unclear understanding of the petition it criticizes and the process it praises.
The editorial suggests that more conversations between residents will be fruitless. I wonder if any of the writers of the piece have actually been to a Chapel Hill 2020 even thus far.
If they had, they would have seen the wonderful discussions taking place about the future of our community and the range of complex issues that need more time to be ironed out.
Public discussions around issues as complex as those being considered in the Chapel Hill 2020 process are naturally difficult. But good leadership and facilitation can keep participants on track and make the final plan much better.
Those who signed the petition — including me — believe that extending the plan deadline is a necessary first step in improving the process and the plan, and making up for current inadequacies.
The editorial argues that a strict deadline will force the plan’s contributors to “make comprises, reconcile differences and produce results.”
Planning does require compromise, but those compromises need to be carefully considered so that everyone’s needs are adequately addressed.
Rushing the plan would lead to hasty decisions, eroding quality of life here. What’s more, it’s unheard of for plans to be developed in less than a year. Good planning is, at its core, thoughtful and inclusive. The process hasn’t been thus far, so we need more time to get it right.
