It didnt need to get to this point and doesnt need to stay here.
Citizen furor in recent months over a proposed data center on Janesvilles former GM site, and a related grassroots revolt in the form of a direct legislation petition, thats now forcing a November ballot question on all future large development on the former GM site, didnt start out with people being so angry.
It started out with citizen questions, a perceived lack of response from the city, and then allegations by those who ultimately pushed through the ordinance petition, of secrecy and the citys fast-tracking of the data center proposal.
We dont believe the city set out to maliciously deflect citizens demands for more information and more transparency, and purposefully didnt listen although some local residents might say thats been the case. But there certainly has been confusion surrounding the citys process and resulting frustration that, when not effectively addressed, finally boiled over.
If ever there was a moment when the city should have practiced over-communication and checked for full understanding among its citizens and didnt effectively do that it was in these past six months. In the end, a populist uprising was the unfortunate result.
Not that the city is alone in bearing responsibility for the moment Janesville now finds itself in.
While well always champion local voices and grassroots calling out of local government decisions that are perceived as unfair or tone deaf or flat out wrong for the community, there has in recent months been, in our view, a troubling dearth of patience and civility among some city residents.
Insistent demands for immediate release of information have, at times, seemed to completely disregard the citys seemingly reasonable explanation that negotiations with potential data center developers, for instance, have to follow a process that includes early closed-door meetings to protect those businesses proprietary interests.
Theres been a digging in on fixed viewpoints with a seeming disinterest among some people in hearing any alternative perspective. Theres been too little interest among some people in considering emerging information, as the city has worked to post a trove of vetted information on its website, has begun a series of public meetings with invited experts on data centers, and city officials have been available for questions and conversation.
Its seemed that, to some people, it doesnt matter what the city says nor the amount and quality of information it shares; government is not going to be trusted, end of discussion.
Thats been a disservice. So, too, has been the posting by some people of questionably vetted facts about the environmental impact of data centers, and posting of facts that have been widely debunked or rendered moot by evolving technology and evolving accepted best practices on issues such as water use, noise pollution and energy consumption.
Theres been too little care taken, at times, to consider the origin of some data center facts before re-posting them, and too little consideration given to the potential for others to latch onto what has been shared, vetted or not, with our local conversation then influenced by information thats old or inaccurate.
Lets also remember that it wasnt the city that courted data center developers. Data centers came to it, and city officials, in our view, responded appropriately to those inquiries: at first behind closed doors, releasing information as it became OK to do so.
And then theres been the tone of some of the discourse, with some local residents not appropriately checking angry words.
Its felt, at times, like the moment were in living in the United States, where incivility is increasingly accepted under the guise of demanding government accountability.
Just as we can do better across the U.S., so too can we do better here in Janesville.
And so, were now left staring down a November referendum on a proposed ordinance that if approved would require any future project costing more than $450 million, on the former GM site, to be approved in a public referendum.
If the ordinance is approved by voters in November, and the city council chooses to remain on this data center path, a second referendum would have to follow to approve any project specifically.
We agree that the adoption of this ordinance on the GM site could have a chilling effect into the future, among developers interested in bringing any large project to Janesville.
If voters can angrily push through an ordinance that will now require a referendum for any large project proposed on the GM site, the door flings wide open for future direct legislation pushes for other projects. Dont like a newly proposed large housing development somewhere in Janesville? Start a direct legislation petition drive and get it blocked.
What in the moment feels like local democracy at work could have deep repercussions, with developers sidestepping Janesville for other nearby cities where theres less potential for conflict and delay that risks their investment.
Nearly two decades after the closure of the GM plant, good things have been happening in Janesville: continued downtown redevelopment including a new childrens museum; a new Boys & Girl Club; the new Woodmans Center; an upcoming once-in-a-generation zoning code update; and calls to update the Milton Avenue corridor and to renew the southside.
Those are positive. The potential chilling effect on the citys good momentum, with the passage of this proposed ordinance in November, is real.
In the months before this question appears on the November ballot, theres a chance to come together on this matter. Heres how we do that.
We step back and start intentionally listening to each other.
We lay out all the pros and cons of putting a data center on the GM site.
We take this conversation to where the people are: to city parks, school gyms, church fellowship halls, a booth at the fair.
We have community members who sincerely support the idea of a data center on the former GM/JATCO site sit down with those who say theyre unequivocally opposed. We invite people, too, to the table, whose views fall somewhere in between.
We invite to the table city officials to listen and share the facts theyve gathered, to talk about what a data center development timeline might look like, and what the long-term economic benefits could be and the potential long-term repercussions of this ordinance.
We invite in community members from other cities where data centers are in place or proposed, and hear about their experiences. And we invite into the discussion more perspective than just utility companies that have a financial stake in a data centers development, and others who are perceived as being pro-data center, and thus in some peoples minds not to be trusted.
We set ground rules for civility. Poke holes in the facts as presented. Cross check their validity. Check that everyone understands.
And maybe between now and November we whittle this down to what we collectively agree to be true, what we collectively agree is myth, what we all agree we can live with, and what path or paths were collectively not interested in taking Janesville down, neither in the short nor long-term.
We collectively acknowledge whats an overblown fear and whats a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed if a data center or any other large project is to ever go forward on the GM site or anywhere else in the city.
And then, we go to the ballot box in November, and take the city forward in whatever way weve together decided is best.
If done right, the most important positive impact will be long-term communication, as we come to see that, the next time something like this comes up, intentional listening, patience for process, intentional responding and civil discourse have to start at the start, on all sides. Or, as has been our recent experience, things will blow up.
And thats how Janesville wont hopefully ever find ourselves here again.