Participation Guidelines
The City of Flagstaff (the “City”) has partnered with OpenGov, a third-party online forum provider, to create a civic engagement platform that will allow the citizens of Flagstaff get more involved in City government. Flagstaff Community Forum is a forum for the discussion of proposed City projects and upcoming policy topics related to local government in the City and its partner agencies. The topics are generated by City staff, commissions, and Council for the purpose of public participation in current government decision making.
To ensure that all voices are heard and that forum participants are able to speak freely about the posted topics, participants who register to use the forum must agree to not post disruptive statements. Disruptive statements include the following:
- Statements that do not relate to the posted topic;
- Personal attacks and statements that threaten or abuse other forum participants, members of the public, City staff or City officials;
- Statements that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual preference, age, region, disability, etc.
- Hate speech of any kind;
- Statements containing any sort of commercial advertising or soliciting funds, goods, or services;
- Repetitive or meaningless messages (“spam”);
- A statement from a user who has falsified their registration information with the intent to post multiple statements in one topic or to misrepresent their city of residence; and
- Statements that include obscene, pornographic, abusive, or otherwise illegal material.
OpenGov, acting as the forum monitor, will remove any disruptive statements that are posted on the forum. Forum participants who post disruptive statements may lose their posting privileges.
Frequently asked questions about the participation guidelines
Why does Open Town Hall monitor for disruptive statements?
OpenGov is a non-partisan company dedicated to building public trust in government and broadening civic engagement. Many people will not participate, if the forum has disruptive statements.
Does Open Town Hall find many disruptive statements?
No. Disruptive statements are quite rare - less than one in a thousand statements on OpenGov moderated topics nationwide are disruptive.
What does Open Town Hall do if they find a disruptive statement?
OpenGov
- moves the statement to a different web page,
- describes the problem in an email to the author, and
- invites the author to change the statement.
Does Open Town Hall ever edit or delete statements?
Never. Only the statement's author can edit or delete a statement. If a statement is removed from the public website, it will still be seen by the City of Flagstaff and be part of the public record.
If I disagree with someone, can I post my opinion?
Yes. Open Town Hall encourages open dialog and debate which, by necessity, includes disagreements.
How do I know if my statement is a 'disagreement' or a 'personal attack'?
Personal attacks are disparaging remarks which impute motives to a person's action. Statements of fact, or of your own opinion are generally not personal attacks.
Here are some examples of statements which are, and are not, personal attacks.
Personal Attack v. Not A Personal Attack
He is a liar. V. He said he did X, but in fact he did Y.
She misrepresented the truth. V. I don't believe what she said.
He is greedy. V. He is making money from this project.
It is merely a power play on her part. V. She will announce her candidacy soon.
Translate
On average, how often do you use the greater Observatory Mesa area (i.e., Lowell Observatory, Observatory Mesa Natural Area, and abutting National Forest)? (See map, above)
When do you typically use the greater Observatory Mesa area?
How well do you think the plan addresses the following priorities? (1 = poorly addressed, 2 = neutral, 3 = well addressed) (review the draft plan linked in the survey introduction)
Would the proposed formal trail system for the greater Observatory Mesa area be an improvement of the current conditions? (see maps, above and review the draft plan linked in the survey introduction)
Should Class 1 E-bikes be allowed on the proposed trail system for the greater Observatory Mesa area? There may be an opportunity to allow E-bike use within the planning area. Class 1 E-bikes are pedal-assist bikes that can travel at speeds up to 20 miles an hour.
Do you support the inclusion of the following trail design types in the Greater Observatory Mesa Trail Plan? (1 = No, 2 = neutral, 3 = Yes)
Several dirt roads in the focus area will be retained for administrative uses. Should these roads be used as trail connectors to reduce overall impact, or would you prefer a new trail be developed adjacent to some of these existing roads to provide additional user experience? (see maps, above)
Please provide comments regarding what experiences you prefer as it relates to using existing roads vs. new proposed trails.
No response.Please provide further comments and direction on your views associated with any aspect you think this plan should consider. Specificity will assist us in using feedback to make plan revisions. (i.e., include: location, solutions, access point numbers, trail id numbers, section numbers, etc.).
Please consider and incorporate the following comments regarding the GOMA Trail Plan 2023 Draft as the planning process moves forward. As you know, I have been an active contributor of comments regarding the proposed GOMA Trail Plan since it was first revealed to the public in 2022. I appreciate that as the planning process has progressed you have seriously considered and incorporated the comments and feedback I have provided thus far. At the last public meeting it became obvious to me how extensively the GOMA Trail Plan proposal has been primarily influenced by and dominated by a single user group–this user group being mountain bikers. As a result of this specific user group’s influence, I believe the plan and planning process itself has evolved to the point where it promotes mountain bikers as the priority user group, thus relegating walkers, hikers, and runners to a second class user group on Obserservatory Mesa. I believe that this plan will result in the conversion of Observatory Mesa into a recreation area massively dominated by mountain bikers from what is now mostly a foot traffic user group. Such a conversion represents a massive change in the user experience for those who choose to recreate on Observatory Mesa. The citizens of Flagstaff who approved the purchase of the State Land sections represent a much broader base of users than mountain bikers. Over the past couple years mountain bikers have come to dominate many of the trails around Flagstaff. The trails, both new and old, around Dry Lake Hills, are full of mountain bikers, a noticeable proportion of whom disregard the right-of-way triangle and routinely expect hikers and runners to rapidly move out their way even when it is not reasonable to so with immediacy. The pedestrian user experience in Dry Lake Hills, as well as on the Arizona Trail sections around Flagstaff, have become a mountain biking mecca–at the detriment to people who walk or run. This change is similar to that which occurred in Moab, UT over the past 20 years. I do not believe that Flagstaff should become dominated by the mountain biker user group like has occurred in Moab. And I do not believe that Observatory Mesa should become another area dominated by mountain bikers as I believe would be the case with the proposed GOMA Trail Plan. I therefore request that the GOMA trail planning process take a step back and reflect on how the mountain biking user group has one-sidedly influenced the overall set of assumptions upon which many parts of the plan are based. The interests and desires of the pedestrian based user groups need to be solicited and incorporated into the proposal. I am a mountain biker, hiker, and trail runner myself, so I am not opposed to progressively and thoughtfully creating a set of well designed rails on Observatory Mesa. However, such a trail system, by intentional planning and design, should not be focused on mountain biking as the dominant use on the mesa. Motorized e-bikes should not be allowed anywhere across Observatory Mesa. The very idea that the City of Flagstaff would request a special exception from the US Forest Service to allow e-bikes potentially sets a precedent with the USFS that could end up allowing e-bikes across many more USFS trails where E-bikes are incompatible with pedestrian trail users due to the speed of the e-bike. I also foresee e-bikers being even more impatient with pedestrian trail users than is already the case, thus resulting in a lower quality experience for hikers and walkers. All proposed and existing trails on Observatory Mesa should be bi-directional and open to all permitted user groups. One-way, downhill trails for the exclusive use of mountain bikers should not be permitted. The unpermitted trails/routes illegally constructed by mountain bikers should be rehabilitated and redesigned, where appropriate, or totally closed if they are causing resource damage. I support the design and construction of a trail that is capable of accommodating adaptive cycles. Thank you for seriously considering these comments and for incorporating them substantively into the planning process and plan as it moves forward.Would you like to receive future news about the Greater Observatory Mesa Trail Plan? Enter e-mail if interested.
yes - [email protected]What is your home ZIP code?
86001