Yesterday I was on of
the 'chosen few' to attend a workshop style meeting at the Town Hall
on the Future of St Helier. It might seem odd that someone who lives
and works in St Ouen should be invited, but it was as a
representative of a stakeholder group, as were the other attendees.
The last such States
event I attended was Imagine Jersey 2035 . Compared to that event
this was rather less prescribed and much more open ended questions
were posed. Were were divided into table of six or so for each
questions, and each on different tables for three three topics.
These topics were: Travel and transport; Urban living and the
environment; Identity and community.
I arrived in not too
good humour . I have spent an hour in the early morning looking for
my cheque book (and failed) so I could run an errand while on one my
rare town visits. I also had to ensure I had checked the plant
covers, done the watering and updated my online paper before
catching the bus. When I arrived there was no name badge for me. I
knew this was not going to be an easy day.
We had an introduction
from Constable Crowcroft, Environment Minister Luce laid out some
criteria, notable when talking of the future we should be mindful of
the 20-30years ahead as well as the vision for 2-3 years hence.
David Olgivie, the independent facilitator then did some ice-break
exercise and elicited a list from the participants of criteria for
interaction like listening and courtesy etc.
And then the wall for
pro-car sentiment hit us. The topics we each accompanied by the
three same questions: What would mater to you and why; what could we
change to met what's important to you, If we could only change 2
things, what would they be? That makes sense if you tackle each in
turn, which is what I expected the moderator on our table to do. But
it wasn't done like that on the first, and really only tried on the
last table I was on. A trio of people dominated the input at our
table , having come it seemed with their own agenda and list of
points to make on traffic and parking , particularly on what could be
done. We were told that everyone drives, and residents of St Helier
each should have a right to a parking space, like everyone else
does. I contradicted those points they were factually incorrect
where I could , but there was no means or space to actually make
constructive input. When the moderator with just a minute or so left
asked each of use what pints we though were the 2, I refused pointing
out that my chance to state what was important had not even been made
on what matters. Choosing a conclusion form that position is
stupidity. This was not well received , but that is the only sensible
comment when things had be so poorly moderated the rubric had not
been followed.
There was a summing up
from all the tables inputting their two main points and so on. From
what I could tell from a couple of discussion in the break, carbon
emissions, air quality, population fitness, technology changes and
home working had barely been raised anywhere. There was a general
agreement that a much better bus service is needed.
The second session was
more constructive. Again the input was very firmly focussed on the
tangible and the built environment. At least there was an opportunity
to comment on the importance health wise of open spaces, the possible
sea level rises impact and sea defences, and air quality was
mentioned by someone else on our table. It got interesting when SOS
and SOJDC started on the finance quarter. They seem not even to
be able to agree on whether the revised plans mean the road is to be
sunk or not. I had the impression it was not to be sunk, thankfully.
With the exception of the future of the finance centre buildings, I
once again had no sense of the long term thinking and how the world
will be different then and how that might influence decisions we can
or should make today. In the summing up thankfully the desire for
more trees did well!
The final session was
on safety, identify, community. We had some agreement that it had
identity and community, but that it was more people than places.
There was a lot of talk about night time economy being distinct and
different from day time economy. There was also some comment on the
need for St Helier as the capital to have more autonomy, especially
given it is proportionately under representation in the States.
At the summing up there
were a few comments from the floor. Notably they included the lack
of youth at the event and the need to have them included in thinking
of the future (I agree wholeheartedly), and the need to engage with
social media. Deputy Luce made concluding remarks, two of which
stood out. 90% of us agree on 90% of what was said , and that the
next Island Plan will cover the period 2012-2030. While I don't
particularly disagree with much of what was said and points raised ,
I think the minister is in danger of misunderstanding the
significance of what was discussed. It was for the most part short
term, it lacked significant consideration of how the world will be by
that 2021 plan let alone in 30 years time (2045!).
The rapid and
still escalating impact and power of computing, the rise of world
population and the resource demands to go with that, the change we
might expect in working patterns (the extinction of professional
middle class knowledge jobs!), sea level rises, food insecurity,
energy production, basic material shortages, whole new industrial
sectors arising, and other technologies becoming obsolete. It is
hard to do , and almost impossible project those things correctly.
However is it certain that assuming things will continue more or less
as they are now is sure to be way off the reality.
