Who owns this park? Who has an interest in what happens to it? On the face of it the answers to these questions are probably being characterised as “simple” or “obvious” or even “straightforward”. However the chances are that none of that is so.
If a study were undertaken as to whom the groups, individuals and networks are that hold a sense of ownership, and have a legitimate interest in Regent Park, its very likely that it would expose some very interesting information.
Typically the best time to undertake such a study/audit is when there is contention in the air. At these times those with competing layers of ownership and interest self identify. Yet there are typically others laying low because they are reluctant to be enjoined in a controversy.
The outcomes of controversies are almost always unsatisfactory. Likewise most controversies can be avoided if the information and evidence needed is gathered and taken into account.
In regard to Regents Park it would seem that it would be useful to identify the ‘place’s’ Community of Ownership and Interest – and inclusively rather than exclusively. With that in hand there is a better chance to mitigate against inappropriate hierarchies being set up, hierarchies that are ever likely to underpin rather poor decision making – self serving decision making even.
Stakeholders would of course be a component of Regent Square’s Community of Ownership and Interest [COI] but by necessity a COI list would be a more expansive list than a typical stakeholder list. Stakeholders are generally seen to be those with a pecuniary interest of some kind relevant to the square and undoubtedly an equitable COI list will include many more groups –formal & informal– than a ranked and exclusive stakeholder list.
So it seems that the task that needs to be undertaken is a COI audit even if it is late in the day. It is never too late to gather evidence just so long as it is a truly inclusive, open and transparent process that is employed to gather it. This is an instance where there are tensions between ‘lore’ and 'law’ and the evidence will surely reflect that.
Typically the best time to undertake such a study/audit is when there is contention in the air. At these times those with competing layers of ownership and interest self identify. Yet there are typically others laying low because they are reluctant to be enjoined in a controversy.
The outcomes of controversies are almost always unsatisfactory. Likewise most controversies can be avoided if the information and evidence needed is gathered and taken into account.
In regard to Regents Park it would seem that it would be useful to identify the ‘place’s’ Community of Ownership and Interest – and inclusively rather than exclusively. With that in hand there is a better chance to mitigate against inappropriate hierarchies being set up, hierarchies that are ever likely to underpin rather poor decision making – self serving decision making even.
Stakeholders would of course be a component of Regent Square’s Community of Ownership and Interest [COI] but by necessity a COI list would be a more expansive list than a typical stakeholder list. Stakeholders are generally seen to be those with a pecuniary interest of some kind relevant to the square and undoubtedly an equitable COI list will include many more groups –formal & informal– than a ranked and exclusive stakeholder list.
So it seems that the task that needs to be undertaken is a COI audit even if it is late in the day. It is never too late to gather evidence just so long as it is a truly inclusive, open and transparent process that is employed to gather it. This is an instance where there are tensions between ‘lore’ and 'law’ and the evidence will surely reflect that.
Ray Norman
Tasmanian Coordinator
LANDliteracy Network
Tasmanian Coordinator
LANDliteracy Network
2 comments:
Yes I agree . Why was only one section of the Community consulted . Certainly not the elderly !!
Local government is not at all good at consultation.There is usually a yawning gap between the rhetoric of the Council's promises and what happens on the ground. Mostly this is because the community has too little time and too few resources to take them on.So what do we get? More and more and more of the same old tosh! The dare here is, ask the people, all the people and listen to what they have to say. BTW.. It's an election year remember!
Post a Comment