The power of one

There seems to be no shortage of contentious issues floating around Nassau County these days: those opposed to (and in favor of) a tree ordinance for Nassau County; those in favor of (and opposed to) keeping fresh water an integral part of the Egans Creek Greenway on Amelia Island; proposed development of Crane Island and/or Florida A1A, and so on.

It never ceases to amaze me how one person’s voice — and actions — can have such profound influence on the critical decisions to be made.

When our county commissioners were to consider a proposed tree ordinance for the entire county, a few outspoken residents from west Nassau came before the commission to argue about their rights as property owners. Their voices — and concerns — were clearly more persuasive than those who had hoped to preserve the county’s natural beauty and resources.

In Fernandina Beach, a single resident has effectively prevented any actions to stem the flow of saltwater into Egans Creek south of Jasmine Street by filing a petition with the St. Johns River Water Management District, leaving the City Commission somewhat helpless to answer to the hundreds of residents advocating for fresh water.

And here in our own subdivision, a group of neighbors banded together to form a subassociation that would ensure proper upkeep of conjoined townhomes and exterior landscaping, realizing that the purchasing power of a group would be more beneficial than each homeowner could afford separately. But one property owner took exception to the plan, and filed a lawsuit to prevent its implementation. Three years have now passed, with no resolution in sight.

In all of the above cases, only one thing seems to be missing — the ability to have an intelligent, meaningful, noncombative dialogue about the issues.

In a world of sound bites, talk show hosts who don’t know what it means to listen, and polarized politics with debates that really aren’t in the true sense of the word, having true dialogue isn’t as easy as it might seem.

Often times, it will require an impartial facilitator to set and enforce some simple ground rules: only one person should talk at a time without risk of interruption; if the listener has an issue with what has been said, he or she should respond with a question, rather than a rebuttal, to seek elaboration and clarification. This process should continue until there is some consensual agreement about what the issues really are, and whether there is any middle ground that might satisfy both parties.

Next time you’re tempted to argue with someone or challenge their beliefs, I encourage you to give the dialogue technique a try. Ask some questions, make some attempt (even half-hearted) to understand the other’s position and motivation, and above all, be civil. It likely won’t be easy, but you might be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.