Governing Sustainable Communities

Governing and the governance of sustainable communities is paramount to their success. Like any aggregate group of people, from the community, to the city, to the country, state, or national level, leadership is a necessity. Roseland defines the difference between governing and governance in that government the doing aspect, while governance is the leading aspect. Both of these are necessary for a sustainable communities success.

As with any democracy besides government and governance, a sustainable community also needs public participation, even more so than a regular community. The notion of public participation relates back to one of the earlier ideas we have discussed in this class, civic mindedness. The concept of civicness. Civicness is a component of social capital and is necessary for attaining the full potential of the agents within a sustainable community. By having aspects of public participation such as shared decision making or consensus decision making, within a sustainable community there is a certain amount of civicness being cultivated. With an increase in civicmindedness of the constituents of a sustainable community the social capital increases. This leads to a healthier and more equitable living situation.

An example of public participation within governance in Bloomington, is one that we have been working with all semester, the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability (BCOS). Although BCOS has appointed officials it is open to the constituents in the city. These people can share in the decision making process by attending meetings and bringing in helpful information. The leadership that the commission provides can then work towards forwarding these people's agendas, thus creating an outlet for Joe Everyman to be heard, however, this does require active participation to be part of the decision making process.

A counter example would be my hometown of Tucson, Arizona. The city had received a surplus of monies which was to be determined for a variety of uses. The city held closed door meetings to determine the best use of the money. Community members clammored for different uses, such as education and various sustainable infrastructure. In the end the money was sent to road projects, in many areas that did not even require such improvements, but since there was not a hared decision making process the community members were left voiceless, jaded, and feeling everything but civic. In the future the city could do many things to avoid this hit to its social capital. Especially in a city where the members know both water and energy shortages loom, many people have the desire to be involved, but not the outlet. Past attempts to set up government structures such as BCOS in Tucson have failed due to weak leadership. I can only hope that since I have been absent from my state someone has taken it upon themselves, as a group or individual, to lobby the city for more governance towards the sustainable aspects the city will require in the near future.