COMMENTARY: Will The Silent Majority Please Speak Up

UPDATE, from Jerry Griswold: Denise, attached is a (in the photo gallery) of my election brochure, which I personally circulated to most all of the residents who voted in the previous election.  I completed no other mailings. My campaign mainly consisted of yard signs, circulating this brochure and door to door selling of my goals. If I did not represent the silet majority in the election, why did I get 60% of the vote? I won every polling place, even those in the country.  Wendy clearly represented the horse people and green machine special interest groups and received only 40% of the vote.  Her platform involved a small amount of development along Douglas Avenue, a strict following of the Land Use Plan, strict conformance to the existing and overwhelming conservation ordinances and keeping Caledonia rural.  She was a strong supporter of the original "Save, No Pave" crowd and was a veteran on the Village Board.

The conversation over where and how the Village should grow came to an interesting juncture Tuesday night.

At the end of the day, there was a whole lot of frustration, a few terse words got exchanged and no decisions were made – and the Village Board and members of the Land Use Planning Management Team were only trying to decide where to begin the discussion.

But there seems to be an ideological tug of war going on between those who want Caledonia to stay rural, and those who want less taxes and more development. This is a touchy issue for decision makers and, rightly so. The development of a community defines what a community becomes. But I want to pull this apart the conversations I’ve heard and have it be the basis for a larger discussion.

And that is a conversation where a majority of residents in Caledonia are notably absent. 

Still, there is a sentiment that has been voiced by some in the Caledonia Conservancy that they are speaking for the “quiet majority.” There is also a sentiment held by at least one board member -- Jerry Griswold -- that he speaks for the "silent majority." I am not making a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of either’s comments. I’m saying the claim of authority is an interesting dynamic in this discussion.

The argument made by those who want to maintain the community's green space say they have paid significant taxes, have found value in the community's rural landscape and seek to protect that rural character  -- totally understandable and valid viewpoint.

What is interesting to me is that, Jerry Griswold, a Village Board member, believes that he too represents the silent majority. And he’s largely pushing for ordinance changes that would be more pro-development and would erode the community's green space requirements. So I called him to talk more about that and here's what he said:

“If the silent majority is dissatisfied, they should vote me out,” he said. “And if I’m not doing a good job, that’s what they should do. But I’m just trying to stand up for the silent majority.”

Griswold argues that the silent majority he represents wants and needs more retail shopping, and more jobs. By reducing the green space requirements, the Village could attract more developers, and attracting business is the key to spreading out the tax burden -- again, totally understandable and valide viewpoint.

So, there’s a conflict behind those who say: “I’m speaking for the quiet/silent majority” statements and it's between personal property rights versus the public good, rural versus urban sprawl, and is an economic quandary.

So who’s right? I’m not sure, but I think the “silent majority” needs to speak up. In order for the discussion to move forward, these arguments need to be addressed and reconciled.

On a side note, what I also found interesting is that Griswold questioned why the public should be involved in these early brainstorming discussions about land use and development, which he says should involve hiring a consulting planner, the Land Use Plan Management Committee and more citizens.  He said he’s done quite a bit of work to rewrite some of the existing ordinances that prevent development from happening and he wants to be involved in those meetings, he said. He wanted the meetings closed because he wanted to gather the ideas together first, then have input from the public.

“This was supposed to be a working committee,” he said. “But it might be five years before we get anything done the way we are going about it.”

But I don't think Caledonia has five years to mull over these decisions.

So I ask the questions: should Caledonia’s rural character be preserved at all costs? Is there a middle ground? Whose backyard should be developed first?