CM Banks Q&A: Mangin on Tea Party comparison and NIMBY participation
Banks questions Mangin's comparison of community meeting participants to Tea Party activists. Mangin explains he was referencing jurisdictions with open meetings laws that would outlaw private conversations between council members and applicants, which would prevent negotiating CBAs. He wasn't talking about New York specifically.
some of your past writings and see how they conflict with some of the things that you're now subscribing to today.
When it comes to community participation and this Tea Party comparison,
In that same article, while discussing public participation and open government requirements, you ask readers to imagine
Tea Party activists being present during a high-level federal budget negotiations.
Using that analogy in discussing NIMBY participation at planning board meetings or community board meetings, as we know it now, what exactly
were you trying to communicate with that comparison, and do you still stand by that today?
Thank you for the question, Councilmember.
Going back to the earliest days of my career, I am a huge supporter of community participation in planning decisions.
I think my record demonstrates that.
Did you realize, does Councilmember, some other jurisdictions have laws that would outlaw conversations between individual council members and applicants in the land use process?
That means you would not be able to talk to them at all.
You wouldn't be able to talk to a developer during the process.
That would make it very difficult for individual council members
to hammer out those types of community benefits agreements that we've been talking about that are so important to making communities understand the value of individual projects.
So in that part, I was just saying that we should not have laws, such as exist in some other jurisdictions, that outlaw council members talking to applicants
That's a routine thing that happens today in New York on the way towards meaningful community benefits agreements.
But with the comparison to the Tea Party?
The idea is you would not be able to have any private discussions without extreme proponents or extreme opponents in the room with you.
That would make it really hard to hammer out those negotiations to get to yes on projects.
And so just advocating for a process much like exists in New York City where you can have those conversations, you can negotiate benefits for the community.
So I wasn't talking about New York.
In that particular passage.