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
What about growth idea 1 intrigues you?
Does not seem appealing to me
What about growth idea 1 concerns you?
This isn't feasible. Building infrastructure (roads, water, electricity, broadband, etc.) for rural communities is extremely expensive because of how dispersed they are, so pushing more residents into these areas is fiscally irresponsible. Also, it'd be an environmental disaster. Rural areas use more resources per capita, more land per capita, drive more per capita, and are far harder to protect from wildfires.
What about growth idea 2 intrigues you?
Building inside city limits is typically more environmentally & fiscally responsible. And these areas are likely to be developed at some point anyways, so it's best that they be developed densely.
What about growth idea 2 concerns you?
Redevelopment of appropriate brownfield sites would be more environmentally friendly that developing greenfield sites. Also, some of those greenfield sites would make for good open space / parks / trails, assuming the city can purchase them.
What about growth idea 3 intrigues you?
This is the most fiscally & environmentally responsible growth idea. Commercial & retail spaces and housing around Downtown have ridiculously low vacancy rates, this is a massive unmet demand for this area. And letting more people work & live in this area is great for the environment because they use less resources, less land, and drive less. It's also relatively easy to protect from wildfires.
What about growth idea 3 concerns you?
I'd happily accept a bunch of 6 story buildings in Downtown, that's be a great improvement to the current low-density situation. A bit odd that the growth idea calls out 6 stories as a cutoff though - what factor magically makes 7+ stories unacceptable?
What about growth idea 4 intrigues you?
East Flagstaff is very urbanized already, it makes sense fiscally & environmentally to focus development there.
What about growth idea 4 concerns you?
The implication that it would exclude more growth in Downtown & around NAU. Both are needed.
What about growth idea 5 intrigues you?
I support the goals of limiting expansion into the wildland-urban interface - sprawl is terrible.
What about growth idea 5 concerns you?
This idea would need to be paired with more growth in urbanized areas. Otherwise growth will be squeezed out into commuter hubs like Doney Park, Williams, Bellemont, etc. And that sprawl would be terrible for the environment!
What about growth idea 6 intrigues you?
More employment opportunities is always good.
What about growth idea 6 concerns you?
This doesn't talk about land use like the other growth ideas do.
Are there any additional growth ideas that you would like to see incorporated into the scenario creation and modeling process? If so, please describe it/them below.
Emphasize development & redevelopment in urbanized areas within city limits. It's more environmentally friendly & fiscally responsible (via reduced infrastructure costs) and vacancy data indicates this is where the demand for jobs & housing is highest. It will also advance the city's climate change & walkability goals.