Envisioning Process Revisited

SWAN VALLEY - The Swan Valley Regional Planning Committee (SVRPC) met Oct. 12 and revisited residents’ responses regarding what was envisioned for the Swan Valley. The envisioning process was intended to be the foundation of the Swan Valley Draft Plan.

Members of the SVRPC reviewed the envisioning questions to see if the draft plan is in agreement with what the community wants for the Swan Valley. They also wanted to apply it to the 2.0 Economic Opportunity Element on which they are currently working. The SVRPC members discussed balancing economic growth with preservation of natural resources as an important part of the plan.

SVRPC Chair Ken Donovan said, “Our editing was not received well [at the public comment meeting when the first draft was completed]. [The community] didn’t like what we put out there. We need to focus on what the community wants.”

Resident John Mercer, who participated in the launch of the envisioning process, spoke to the committee about how the envisioning process began, addressed the questions and responses and compiled data from the responses about the economic concerns of the community.

More than 35 community members attended the Sonoran Institute of Tucson, Ariz., where they developed envisioning survey questions for the community. The questions presented to the community included:

1. What do you love and treasure about the Swan Valley and don’t want to see changed?

2. What concerns do you have for the future of the Swan Valley?

3. What changes, if any, would you like to see?

4. What do you want the community to look and be like in the future?

Mercer, who in 2013 compiled the responses to the four envisioning questions, told the committee members that it is important to read all 797 comments. They came from written responses and comments from public meetings. He said it is like a conversation and to not be swayed by how many responses there were to an individual question. It is up to the committee to ascertain what is important for the plan.

Mercer read the comments pertaining to economics and development that included in part:

• Create jobs that keep young people and families in the valley

• More sustainable jobs

• Keep producing wood products

• Lack of opportunities

• Keep small businesses

• Need small industry that doesn’t damage the environment

• Encourage the art community

• Make an effort to attract people to visit the valley

In addition to the comments, Mercer said the community had some good ideas about how to boost the economy of the valley such as:

• Learning centers

• Home care

• Nursing

• Overnight accommodations

• Eco tourists

Mercer said that the comments balanced out the economic and the natural resource preservation points of view with responses about both. Mercer added that the community doesn’t want extremes of any sort. They are equally concerned with environment and community.

When asked if the responses could be open to interpretation Mercer responded that he has extensive training in presenting statistics, that no comment was added or taken away or changed. “It is valid information. I worked hard to make sure there was no bias. I am good at that. If you want to challenge it, back it up,” said Mercer.

Mercer added, “It [envisioning process] is an insight into what people are thinking. It is the community coming together, talking.

Committee member Diann Ericson said that it can’t be the economy versus the environment. “It is not either-or. It has to be balanced.”

Committee member Dave Johnson said that the envisioning process would be a good guide if the committee were indecisive about a point. It would offer a good solution in a debate.

The members of the committee agreed with Mercer’s statement that both community and environment make quality of life.

For more information on the envisioning process and responses visit: SwanPlan.org

The next SVRPC meeting is Wednesday, Nov. 2, 7 p.m. at the Swan Valley Community Hall.