“Planners, architects of city design, and those they have led along with them in their beliefs are not consciously disdainful of the importance of knowing how things work. On the contrary, they have gone to great pains to learn what saints and sages of modern orthodox planning have said about how cities ought to work and what ought to be good for people and business in them. They take this with such devotion that when contradictory reality intrudes, threatening to shatter their dearly won learning, they must shrug reality aside.” ― Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra is assembling an advisory Fiscal Assessment Community Task Force in anticipation of (yet another!) override. The name implies community (public) participation, but reading on its clear residents and elected officials will be assembled, rather, to be informed.  To  “… understand what is driving our costs, what we can reasonably expect in revenue, and what it takes to sustain the level of services our community relies on.” Understanding the existing budget seems to be the goal, and perhaps committee members will then go forth… to their constituents, friends and neighbors to “explain” and frame it in positive, inevitable terms.

There’s been a groundswell of residents and some elected officials doing their own assessment of the budget, digging more deeply and offering their assessment  for some time now.  Longtime downtown business and property owners have weighed in heavily against Picture Main Street. Grassroots groups have launched surveys, organized stand-outs, informational forums and newsletters. We’ve expressed our opposition and offered thoughtful, creative alternatives to a variety of project proposals and “things as they are” in columns here in the Gazette and in statements before City Council, School Committee and an endless string of board and subcommittee meetings.

The public “assessment”  of the city’s use of financial resources is mostly a negative one highlighted by insufficient funding of schools, sidewalks and other infrastructure; high consultant fees; questionable use of CPA funds and the outrageous millions of dollars expenditure for the Resilience Hub just to name a few.

The Planning Office and a majority of elected officials have seemingly ignored this public input. About 43% of eligible voters went to the polls for the last election; 9,400 votes were cast, reflecting I think a disengaged and discouraged (lost trust?) population.

The mayor, despite being reelected by a mere 76 votes, largely I think, as a result of the budget and development issues mentioned above has not changed course.

It’s hard to say whether the dissatisfied outnumber the supporters. It doesn’t matter, really. Significant differences and intransigence on the part of City Hall have caused, at best, an unpleasant social/political divide, also often-commented on in these pages.

I think we’re at what urban planners and organizations advocating for more transparency and democracy in government are calling a “critical moment,” where public process falters or succeeds depending on the clarity and integrity of the approach. Is this new task force intended to curb the resistance and diminish contradictions?  Is it simply a checked-box for democracy? Is it meant to gauge public reaction to the necessity of an override? The city is proposing “an assessment” of what is, and as a looks-good measure allowing “the community” into the room, but not to sit at a table. Decisions have already been made; “input”, or meaningful participation in the discussion of what should/could be and the possibility of revised or amended budgets or projects is not on the agenda.

It seems what would be most helpful, what might help bridge the gap between “the city” and those who support its budget and those who do not; what might inspire and support a political/social consensus in support of a budget would be a truly independent, representative task force to evaluate the budget process to find another that might result in a budget that better reflects and meets the needs, priorities and expectations of most people who live and work in the city.  Michael Kane’s June 26 guest column suggested a strategic economic development plan. There are others: zero-based, performance, program or priority-based budgeting that should be considered.

I wonder if the mayor and other administrators have followed Mayor Mamdani’s upbeat, can-do-attitude in NYC; did they notice the city closed a multi-billion dollar budget gap?  How? “For the first time in New York City history, we directed every city agency to appoint a chief savings officer. They were tasked with achieving aggressive savings targets without putting the burden on working people, or sacrificing the level or quality of services.” “Balancing the books,” he went on to say, “ means little if working people still can’t afford their rent, childcare, groceries or the cost of staying in the city they love.”

People — parents, business owners, neighbors and visitors, the multi-talented and devoted who live here —have been clamoring at the door of City Hall asking to be heard on the most critical planning issue in any city or town: the budget. This is the perfect opportunity for City Hall to throw open the doors. Rethink the proposed “assessment,” rebuild a better, more relevant and sustainable budget from the ground up with the help of constituents working in coordination with elected officials and outside planning professionals. “Cities,” wrote Jane Jacobs, “have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.”

Claudia Lefko lives in Northampton.