Guest Opinion: Street trees dialogue a lesson in listening

I believe it is difficult for us to hear when we believe that we have not been heard. It takes courage to listen intently to the unexpected or the undesired. I also find that not being heard can be bitingly painful. These circumstances set up a common source of communication deadlock.

As a resident of the Manito-Cannon neighborhood, I saw this happen during the Bernard Street improvement project two years ago.

Many citizens were taken by surprise as they learned details of the project plans. They sounded a cacophony of sincere concerns that were often, and unfortunately, expressed as accusation.

The city was taken by surprise by the reaction. City Hall entrenched itself against the threat, preparing legal arguments and performing pro forma actions that implied due diligence.

Neither side was listening. Deadlock was in place.

The results? Bernard Street was rebuilt, curb to curb, with 17 older trees being removed from planting strips and 24 baby trees being planted in yards. Because of current city ordinances, large historic street trees could not legally be replanted in Bernard Street’s narrow planting strips.

Lincoln Street, where another improvement project is now scheduled for 2009, faces similar challenges.

Spokane’s older streets present a complicated interaction among our historic infrastructure elements. These elements include: sidewalks, streets (driving, bicycling and parking), electrical power systems, communication and water management systems. Diverse personal relationships with our urban environment add complexity. Complexity is expanded by our perplexing legal system.

As a technical problem resolution consultant, I decided to test my ability to listen. The Manito-Cannon neighborhood allowed me to distill citizens’ written comments regarding Lincoln Street at our September 2007 meeting.

I began what I call a “concordant process.” Citizens and City Hall invested more than 300 hours in:

“Discussing citizens’ concerns by phone and e-mail.

“Exploring possibilities with city engineers and their public information coordinator.

“Preparation of feedback and estimates by city engineers.

“Talking with Mayor (then candidate) Mary Verner, who was very receptive.

“Vetting the presentation with small groups of neighborhood citizens.

“Getting and responding to feedback.

A slide show was developed to capture the neighborhood’s prioritized concerns and requests. I presented this to the Manito-Cannon neighborhood at our October meeting, and citizens indicated it represented a solid view of the neighborhood’s collective desires and perspectives.

What does my neighborhood want? The most consistently expressed desire is to maintain and enhance the historically planted tree canopy. Yet the current code is at odds with this desire.

London plane trees – members of the sycamore family, they shed bark and have maple-shaped leaves – are common on the South Hill. They were planted more than 80 years ago and now live in planting strips significantly narrower than the 12 feet required by current code. When these large canopy trees expire, they cannot be legally replaced.

This challenge is fundamental to a deep concern surrounding the Lincoln Street and Bernard Street projects. The challenge will persist across the city, given the large number of canopy trees living in planting strips smaller than current code requires.

Other major Lincoln Street concerns include traffic calming and safety for children, street crossing, bicycling and parking.

At the Manito-Cannon neighborhood’s January meeting, representatives of the city public works department and Avista Utilities responded to neighborhood concerns. They described technical and financial complexities related to Lincoln Street and expressed their willingness to work with citizens toward a satisfying design. They expressed the need for the neighborhood to find funding for our solution. The city’s willingness to negotiate Lincoln Street’s design is a big step that shows they are listening.

I saw a more courageous effort to listen at the January meeting than during the Bernard Street meetings. A citizen expressed her sincere concern for the many historic trees soon to be threatened by our difficult situation, while working not to blame city employees. City arborists responded with visible discomfort in their desire to find a solution. The conspicuous absence of both overt blame and assertions of control was evidence of good-willed restraint.

Decisions made nearly a century ago led to our historic streets’ current challenges. This is becoming clearer to everyone.

What did I learn? The essential importance of hearing and being heard was reinforced. Gaining mutual understanding of our shared context is valuable regardless of the physical outcome. We will give ourselves a valuable gift if we can achieve shared understanding on Lincoln Street. Perhaps we can create a process that includes courageous mutual listening to guide all future citizen-city engagements.