But You Need To Give People A Place To Go ...

Non-ideological, ‘ad hoc’, local action groups form around common interests or, quite often, around shared areas of discontent and dissatisfaction. The animus or ‘call to arms’ is not a common belief system such as those that motivate Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers”. It is most frequently conditions which the group find to be unacceptable in their ‘habitat’ or with those organizations, such as the various levels and agencies of government, that control or influence that ‘habitat’. This is the basis of community advocacy, activism and social engagement and is, generally, a positive force for change and measured transformation.

However, articulation of the problem – no matter how accurate or precise – without identification of possible solutions or alternate approaches is neither healthy nor helpful.  It is what we see in most political encounters and campaigns today – artful assignment of blame or flaw without a well-reasoned and voiced means of correction. It is what has consumed the United States for the last decade and what threatens to consume Canada today. It is the basis of the historical revisionism, virtue signaling and ‘cancel culture’ that threatens to extinguish respectful and engaged exchange of ideas and honest dialogue and debate. It is, quite simply and unfortunately, far easier to critique than to correct.

It is right and proper to target things that need to change but to do so in the absence of remedial proposals is an abrogation of due diligence and responsibility. For each ‘flaw’ exposed, there should be an “environmental review”; a demonstrated understanding of the ‘issue universe’, the complexities involved and the costs/challenges – then a set of measures established that are designed to correct it. There must be context and there must be sensible moderation. What use is it to suggest that the solution to the crumbling bridge is to drain the roaring river? Actions should be as detailed and fulsome as possible – the objective being to encourage review, beneficial revision and acceptance. The goal must be to better the existing state and wellbeing of the communal whole, by all reasonable means. Activism needs to motivate people but it also needs to give people a place to go with their anger and frustration. It needs to transform negative force into positive momentum. The core identity of the action group must be affirmative.

Burlington has a history of ‘ad hoc’ civic advocacy groups; there was ‘Save the Waterfront’, WeLoveBurlington and ECoB as the most prominent and influential of past associations and there is ‘Plan B’ and now BRAG as ongoing action groups. Many were/are “one trick ponies” – groups assembled to deal with a single issue or set of related issues. Plan B, for example, is focused on a single concern, development of the Waterfront Hotel site.  Accordingly, it has a well-articulated proposal that responds to and addresses its disagreement with the public benefit of over-developing the Waterfront Hotel site.

BRAG (Burlington Residents Action Group), just launched, is substantively different. It has an immediate concern with the municipal taxation levy, past and proposed, and the degree of prudent fiscal stewardship and citizen engagement that should be instituted. It is a worthy concern and will be of interest to every Burlington citizen, regardless of demographic or economic circumstance. It has also identified other problem areas – traffic congestion, building/housing intensification, more open/accountable government and climate change amongst them. However, at present, it has not established any remedial measures and options for any. If it does not expand its immediate focus of concern and also develop a framework (a platform) of well-articulated and sequenced options for each issue, then it will fail and fade.