Who says folks aren't interested in technical subjects like traffic control? The good news out of central Arkansas is that some 1,400 comments had been submitted about the latest plan to disrupt traffic--and life--in the very center of the state.
These "planners" would vivisect the downtowns of Little Rock and North Little Rock in the much-abused name of civic progress by running more high-speed expressways through once peaceful neighborhoods. Their latest scheme would also tear down an historic bridge or two and generally up-end not just settled traffic patterns but ways of life. Theirs is a plan worthy of the ancient Vandals and all their modern imitators. ("They make a desolation and call it peace.") Divide et impera--divide and conquer--isn't just a Roman maxim. It could come straight out of the modern city planner's manual.
This outpouring of opinion pro and con was inspired by the latest and last of six public hearings on this contentious subject. The whole furor would make a valuable addition to an American classic like Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Being so far behind her times allowed her to wind up far ahead of ours.
Better news is that the City of Little Rock is not about to rubber-stamp any plan put before its mayor and city manager. (Talk about poor planning and unnecessary duplication, there's a grand example of both.) Now both Mark Stodola and Bruce Moore object to any plan that would have a "substantially negative impact" on downtown Little Rock. Their all too vague reservations about this plan were echoed by Stephanie Streett of the Clinton Presidential Center.
Objections to the professional planners' latest stealth attack on the integrity of Little Rock's downtown were mild compared to the clear strong voice of Kathy Webb, one of Little Rock's better city directors. She's been a beacon of light throughout this controversy, and now says the best thing to do about it is exactly nothing. It's much too early in the whole process, she says, even to comment on it. Certain silences, she realizes, can be golden.
The best news of all is that voices of dissent like that of Tom Fennell, the Little Rock architect, are no longer lonely. He's got a lot of company these better days. Mr. Fennell would transform the plan to just ram I-30 straight through downtown Little Rock into one that would turn it into a lovely boulevard. Think of Mexico City before it was drowned in smog and overrun by the drug cartels. Or maybe Buenos Aires circa 1930. Here's how Tom Fennell puts the case for preserving rather than destroying the value and values of our old neighborhoods:
"It has long been documented that real estate adjacent to urban freeways has its value dramatically reduced long term. One only has to drive along I-30 and I-630 in the downtown area to see the results firsthand. For 60 years, abandoned houses, condemned buildings, empty lots and industrial sites have lined Little Rock's freeways."
What a refreshing change it would be if people, their property, and sense of community got the same consideration that cars and trucks do in the state highway department's grand plans.
But why must we be forced to choose between beauty and efficiency at all? Why not just sit back and let traffic, like life, take its natural course? People will find ingenious ways to deal with both if left to their own devices. What our downtown neighborhoods may need most at this point is a good leaving-alone.
It was said of an American president named Eisenhower that he did nothing and did it particularly well. Why not follow his sterling example in this case? The state's other growing metroplexes are being offered much the same false choice between beauty and efficiency. Why have to choose between them? Why not keep Arkansas both beautiful and efficient?
------------v------------
Paul Greenberg is the Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial writer and columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Editorial on 06/22/2016