Stoney Creek News item #2

The other front-page article that gave me pause was the one dealing with paid parking in the downtown. As I've dealt with my previous take on the issue, found here, I won't get into the meat of the matter. (I'm still fashioning an understanding of some of the background issues that contributed to this 'crisis'. Well, faux-crisis. More on this eventually. If I don't get assassinated in the interim.)

But I did find the headline to be misleading, and the article itself lacking a pertinent element that to me, was as important as any of the others provided.

The headline is 'Metered parking for downtown begins July 1'. Except that this is, to me, wholly misleading. From the start, from this resident's point-of-view, from this Stoney Creek reader's perspective, the far more important aspect of the parking was Municipal Lot #3. Not the street parking. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you examined the practices of the Legion and SOS and Food Bank volunteers (a huge part of this discussion in the 'Against' camp), you'd find the default parking location for them would be the lot. So rather than declare a reasonable victory, a positive 'compromise' if you will (the bulk of the downtown parking is not going to be metered), we've given the impression -not just by the headline, but by the article itself- that a great sadness has descended the community.

Really?

Talk about making the glass appear half-empty...if not barren...and shattered.

The other part of my reaction had to do with no mention at all being made of downtown employees having to move their cars during the workday. Whereas before, some could use the available street parking as potential 'musical chairs' options, shuffling their vehicles here, there and everywhere, every two hours, now they're all going to have to run over to Lot #3...or pay to park closer...or a mix of the two.

Even given the fact that this situation needed to be addressed on its own merits, it's been fascinating to me is to note how all along, the hierarchy of concern went something like this:

1) Volunteers

2) Customers

3) Employees (I'm being kind here. There may have been copy space afforded to this from the start, but if 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease', then this wheel never made much noise. Even though I know that it's an important issue. Or at least I've been told this is an important issue...)

(Ya know... I have to say that it speaks volumes about a main street, a town's core, a 'downtown' that the greatest concern broadcast in a situation like this -at least by the local paper- is a non-commercial one. Don't take this the wrong way, I am in no way diminishing the importance in a community sense of any of the three entities being referenced...I'm merely commenting on the notion of vibrancy, the presumed oomph normally associated with any downtown being a destination...a concept the basis of which is usually, let's face it, 'business'.)

I said to Someone in The Know, Stoney Creek-wise only yesterday that the town is becoming more and more like its 'Can't Do, Won't Do' neighbour to the west; it needs to celebrate this victory, acknowledge it for what it is, gain closure...then move the &@^#@ on with the job of actually generating the downtown's vitality.

(Oh, and I still believe that the News needs to do a barebones, timeline article as a summary of what happened here...maybe with a corollary angle of 'What Can We Learn From All This?'. After all; you know what they say about those who ignore the lessons of history...)