This if from May 1, 2019, the intent and spirit of Places for People was clear.
Town hall falls short of reaching the people
if The New Symposium Society’s public forum, “Wichita Matters: Our Quality of Life,” panel discussion was held April 30 at Friends University. Panelist Matt Riedl, the arts and entertainment writer at the Wichita Eagle, offered a personal perspective on the very demographic that dominated much of the conversation as the panelists and moderator discussed how to keep young people in Wichita and how to prepare for Wichita’s future. Renee Duxler, the executive director of the Douglas Design District, spoke of the improvements made to Douglas east of Washington without government funding, centering on the arts as a way to improve quality of life.Andrea Knighton, the founder of Wichita Area Sustainability Initiative described Wichita’s entrepreneurial spirit as thriving as the city makes changes to accommodate diverse populations. @Phil Nelson, the director of the Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization was the speaker without an uplifting message. Even moderator Russell Arben Fox Ph.D., political science professor at Friends University, described his presentation as “sobering.” Nelson’s message about Wichita’s future was confusing and disjointed. He asked some of the right questions and offered no good answers. He asked if Wichita is investing in the right kinds of things to face the future. He talked about the brain drain and mentioned that the late Wichita State University President Dr. John Bardo noted that, “the second biggest export of the south-central Kansas region is educated 18-54 year olds.” These are valid concerns.Nelson got it right when he said we need a humanistic approach as we look toward Wichita’s future. He suggested that rather than ignore or react to substantial trends, we try to change current trends, including the migration of talent out of the region. However he didn’t offer up anything that sounded like a humanistic approach. He talked about infrastructure and public transportation. He talked about housing in the city’s core, otherwise known as the “Wichita: Places for People,” plan. A plan that includes the “densification of Wichita.” That doesn’t seem like a plan most Kansans would cotton up to.It is a shame Nelson didn’t glean any information from his fellow panelists, who talked about the arts and humanities, parks and the river, and yes, they talked about the vibrancy of downtown including creating residential developments. Questions from the crowd tried to address gentrification and keeping things local. It seemed the other panelists and the audience had a clearer understanding of a humanistic approach to Wichita’s future than Nelson had.Most disturbing was Nelson’s dismissal of the citizens who do not buy the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission’s plans and policies lock, stock and barrel. “NIMBY’s” Nelson said, are defined as, “not in my backyard.” CAVE’s, he explained, are “citizens against virtually everything.” And, what he said are his personal favorites, “BANANA’s, build absolutely nothing, anywhere near anyone.”While Nelson’s list drew some chuckles, I couldn’t help but think, that the people he was summarily dismissing with a few cute acronyms are the very citizens he and the MAPC should be engaging and listening to. These are the citizens who are paying attention, who care, who have an opinion and who would work with the MAPC, if given a chance.I reflected on my own recent experiences with the MAPC. Three times in three years I have been part of organized Riverside neighborhood efforts to get the MAPC to listen to our concerns as homeowners, involved citizens and dedicated, caring Wichitans. And three times the MAPC has decided against the neighborhood and in favor of private developers who wanted to exploit the historic neighborhoods and the river corridor for their own personal financial gain. Thankfully, in the first two cases our Wichita City Council turned things away from private enterprise at the expense of the neighborhood and city at large and toward the people and neighborhoods. May 7 they will again vote on whether or not to allow an 80-foot cell phone tower into a residential neighborhood, which is not needed or wanted by the residents.At this point, presenting to the 14-member MAPC feels like an exercise in futility. The mostly male (there is one female commissioner), mostly white (there is one black commissioner) commission seems deaf to the concerns of citizens. The commissioners do not represent me or the diversity they are reportedly so concerned with. The MAPC needs more women, more people of color and more young people on the commission. And they need to learn how to listen to people instead of money. — Madeline McCullough