All issues coming forward are at once practical and symbolic. Submerged under this matrix are the values stakeholders bring to bear to stand on any one issue. A common set of pivot points, of paired opposites waits like the LaBrea tar pits to ensnare citizens, officials and public debate. All issues seem to break out along the same following stereotypic lines.
Preservation vs. change, diversity vs. homogeneity, balance vs. one-sided, regulate vs. free market, Wall Street vs. Main Street, appropriate vs. inappropriate, integrity vs. dishonest, character vs. formula, flavor vs. bland, process vs. appeal, open vs. closed mind, planning vs. no design, sustainable vs. unsustainable and onward ho. Are we stuck yet?
The pink door shows us it is not the particular issue that’s critical but the primary assumptions underneath. The same issues with a pink door come out for hotels, architecture, wine tasting and dogs on Montini. The pink door shows issues are symbolic of something deeper. What is at stake is habitual perception and positional dynamics.
A holistic, pragmatic view is rarely possible as people are so accustomed to being positional and taking a side. It is hard to separate the practical and symbolic; the fair truth of a matter is hard to divine. In the end city officials have to chart a way forward, all the symbolism has to give way to a vote and a ruling.
In all of this sits the Plaza, the center, the container and receptacle of the city’s nature and identity. This includes culture, economy, society, environment, history, everything important we can think of. The fact is: the city’s identity is multifold. The city represents a multitude of people, views and values. The public likes to see council members articulate values, then we understand why a ruling goes one way or another.
The moral of the story: Proper governance asks all parties to step back and look as if their issue was a pink door.
.
