Lakefront Meeting Gives Voice to "Public Intelligence" on Lakefront

The regular business portion of the October 1st City Council meeting was eclipsed by a community-based talk-in on the Bergmann draft of the Downtown/Lakefront Plan, facilitated by City Manager Matt Horn. Talk about civic engagement, the banquet room at the Ramada was filled to capacity with interested citizens there to speak and/or to listen.

It was not the typical ‘public comment’ format of Council meetings, where people approach Council, like an attorney approaching the bench, and state their case, with a belated reply from this or that Councilor, later in the meeting, after folks had gone home.

Instead, the Bergmann proposal was divided into six main components, and each component was given its own place on the agenda. Members of the public could speak about that aspect of the project, Councilors could share their views and reactions to what was said, and then everyone would move on to the next component. In the interest of time, speakers were asked not to re-state a position that had already been articulated. The idea was to solicit what Ken Camera calls “public intelligence,” signaling that from the public many intelligent ideas can be found.

Unfortunately, meeting planners did not foresee the time the process would take and discussion of the project’s “Building 12” component went on toward midnight and Council reaction was tabled for another day. Following the logic of the project, the placement of Building 12 on the agenda made sense; but, in hindsight, it’s clear Building 12 merits its own meeting.

When it came to discussing Building 12-- the condo/visitor’s center/interpretive center/parking garage/retail/commercial/catch all building on the lakefront-- not everyone followed the rules, and something of an auditory illusion was created. Those expressing opposition to Building 12 limited their comments to new ideas that hadn’t been previously expressed, while the Chamber of Commerce, the entity that would have its offices in the new building and would staff the visitor’s center component, took multiple turns at the microphone expressing the same point: Build It Now!

According to the Finger Lakes Times (in their editorial opinion piece of October 3rd), this meant that just as many people supported the building as opposed it. Not so (on the numbers), and not so simple (on the reasons)!

From the discussion, three points of view emerged. Here is our attempt to explain and assess them. First, our description of each:

Don’t Build It, or Anything, on the Lakefront: The argument here is that the lakefront is a public asset because it is public. That doing things to enhance the public access to the lake, like a low-impact marina (no repair or gasoline functions), a beach, improved seating areas and walking paths, public art and family-friendly spaces will attract tourists and residents alike and continue to draw people to Geneva who then spend their time and money in our community.

Build Something Limited, but Dynamic: The argument here is that putting a major facility, like the ‘interpretive center’ or museum on the lakefront near the Ramada would, in addition to the public additions named above, be something that could catalyze downtown by providing the kind of dynamic link that would get people moving back and forth across Rtes. 5&20. Within this view, there are some people who think condominiums might be some part of this, and others who favor a standalone facility. But the reason offered in favor of condos. is usually just to offset the operating costs of the public facility and it’s not clear that such a subsidy would be necessary, or if it is necessary, that it would have to come from property taxes, so condos. shouldn’t be seen as the main point of agreement amongst people who fall into this category.

Start Building #12 Now, Before It’s Too Late: The argument here is that we have $5 million in State money that needs to be used now. We also have a visitor’s center that needs to be relocated (because it seems there is unanimous consent in the community that the Chamber no longer belongs in its current city-owned location). Apparently there is some thought that the visitor’s center must be on the lakefront, along with the Chamber of Commerce offices. Because none of these uses are money-makers, we need some commercial and residential space to carry the costs. This option might best be called “Status-Quo-Plus.” It’s status quo because Geneva would still have a building on the lakefront housing the Chamber of Commerce, but it’s ‘plus’ because it that building would be larger and more obtrusive, but it’s status quo because any tax revenue gains would go back into supporting the increased cost of operations,

From this discussion, it was easy to see why Councilor Lou Cosentino was met with such contempt when he tried to start the discussion with a show of hands for people who were “pro-development” vs. people who were “anti-development.” Despite the Chamber of Commerce’s attempts (via its pre-meeting newsletter and some statements from its leadership) to characterize the discussion in this way, it’s just not that simple.

Lucky for Geneva, the attendance at the meeting was high, and the audience seemed willing to engage in a thoughtful consideration of the complexities of the various plan components. Now the City waits to see how the Council adjusts the plan to reflect those realities. We’ll have more to say on the matter, but first, we encourage your feedback on whether our reconstruction of the arguments adequately and accurately captures what you are hearing out there.