Simon Fraser University’s civic engagement group has now published their report on the Delbrook lands consultation which follows. To an extent, it is a throwing ideas at the wall report. Some ideas, such as keeping public lands public, appear to be under reported. How meaningful is it to report 1,000 suggestions have been put forward if there is no sense of community priority reported?
From: SFU Centre for Dialogue – Civic Engage Program <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:29:03 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Delbrook Lands Community Dialogue: Ideas Report
Dear Delbrook Lands community members and stakeholders,
The Ideas Report from phase one of the Delbrook Lands Community Dialogue engagement process is now available online at: http://www.dnv.org/sites/default/files/edocs/delbrook-ideas-report.pdf (it might take a 10-15 seconds to load)
The results from phase one will be presented to District Council on March 7, 2016 . We will actively notify you with each new step in the engagement process.
IDEAS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of phase one of the Delbrook Land Community Dialogue engagement process was to work with the community to generate ideas on potential future uses of the Delbrook Lands, receive input on the next steps of the engagement process and better understand the full range of potential stakeholder impacts and interests. This information was collected from 298 respondents through a January 28 community dialogue, an online and paper survey, and one-on-one communications. Respondents included both local Delbrook community members, as well as residents of the broader District of North Vancouver.
Respondents provided over 1000 suggestions for the future use of the Delbrook Lands, the majority of which fall within four general categories: Parks and Outdoor Recreation; Community Programming Facilities and Structures; Housing; and Additional Ideas. Other issues raised by participants include land ownership and site composition.
Respondents also gave feedback about next steps in the engagement process, including ideas for additional information they would like from the District, as well as suggestions for stakeholders and interests to include going forward. Respondents clearly indicated a desire for transparent information, no pre-determined outcomes, frequent communication, the inclusion of diverse stakeholders, and multiple future engagement opportunities.
Of those who attended the January 28 workshop, 70 percent agreed the event was a productive first step, with 17 percent neutral and 13 percent disagreeing. Eighty-three percent agreed they would be interested in participating in similar events in the future. Feedback from Phase One will be used to design future engagement activities, where participants will identify a broadly supported recommendation to District Council that is informed by community values and real-world constraints.