Can We Expect Different Results From The Same Old Efforts?

Lakefront development is a hot topic. Should we leave the lakefront the way it is right now? Should we build on every available square foot? Is there any option other than those two? Many people have come forward with ideas for the lakefront, including a public trust, a marina, office space, other recreation options, and condominiums.

In the past, some elected officials even tried to dodge lakefront planning issues altogether by suggesting that we just hold a referendum--an open-ended "develop or not?" ballot initiative. The problem, of course, is that is that State Law prohibits cities from doing this. You cannot spend public money to force the general public to decide issues that elected officials (paid with public money) are supposed to be working on. See NYS Comptroller commentary about that, here. Councilors can't be let off the hook from gathering information, promoting discussion, and ultimately being accountable for big decisions. Additionally, it's that kind of 'all or nothing' posing of the question that keeps our lakefront planning at a standstill.

The City just received a grant from the State’s Quality Communities program to engage in this very kind of “community visioning project” for the lakefront. In theory, the project will bring together people from all walks of life, with varied opinions on the best use of the lakefront, with different perspectives on Geneva and the downtown-lakefront connection. The group would work together, with Council and an independent facilitator to define a comprehensive lakefront strategy. The end result would be a plan of action (real action, not just ‘maybe-someday-unless-a-new-plan-comes-along’). And there are several non-profit organizations in the region that specialize in identifying stakeholders, bringing them together, and reaching consensus so projects can get moving. The Genesee Valley Regional Planning Council is located in Rochester, the Community and Rural Development Institute (CaRDI) is affiliated with Cornell, and the former director of the Common Good Planning Center now runs Rochester-based Green Village.

What a disappointment then, to open the newspaper and see that a committee has already been appointed, by the Mayor, to oversee the implementation of the grant and the committee is pretty lopsided in its thinking. The newspaper was quick to point out the affiliations of some of the members (the Mayor’s brother, for instance) but didn’t point out that only one of the many people who have spoken publicly about lakefront issues in recent months was invited to join.

Mike Rusinko, President of the Finger Lakes Tourism Alliance has been promoting the findings of their recent study that speaks to the kinds of amenities that tourists seek in our area. (See the RNews coverage or the WHAM coverage ). Tourism is one of Geneva’s largest economic engines, shouldn’t that perspective be a factor?

Charlie Evangelista, one of Geneva’s representatives to the County Board of Supervisors, had presented an in-depth review of lakefront planning possibilities to Council and to the Lakefront Committee. He also offered the shared services of the Ontario County planning department. Neither Evangelista nor any County planners were put on the committee. Another city resident had contacted a landscape architecture firm that specializes in waterfront planning and shared some of their ideas, but he didn’t make the cut either. It should also be pointed out that while the lakefront is a City issue, it is certainly a regional point of interest. It’s one of the issues that could bridge the divide between the City and Town, if they were also invited to the table.

The Finger Lakes Times didn’t ask the Mayor follow up questions to probe the reasoning behind any of his appointees. At the April 4th council meeting, Councilor Augustine was told that the group will merely select a consultant for the project and help to coordinate public input sessions that will allow other voices to be heard. But will opinions at a public hearing be given as much weight as the opinions of the ‘steering committee’ members?

Geneva’s lakefront is an asset and a resource and the more voices in the planning process, the more likely it is that the plan will have the support necessary to be implemented. Sure, involving the public in decision-making can be messy, and you might find that the group goes in an unexpected direction, but if it’s quick and predictable that you want, you’re better off with a dictator than a democracy.