We teach our kids to share early-on based on the principle that sharing is good for them and getting their way all the time isn’t good for them or for others. If we don’t teach these important lessons of restraint and self-sacrifice, they become accustomed to prevailing, don’t play well with others, and get extremely cranky when anything threatens their perceived entitlement. No one likes being around a two-year old in an adult’s body. So we teach our children that selfishness is an unworthy and unacceptable character trait.

But somewhere along the way, we justify that in adulthood it’s a badge of honor to go for and get what we want – the whole pie. We adopt a mind-set in many areas of life that the goal is to win at any cost and if we don’t, a good secondary goal is to make the other side pay in spades. In the process, we totally disregard that often when we get what we want, others’ interests are damaged or denied.

When we operate from a get-what-we-want-at-any-cost, take all the marbles frame of reference, we don’t stop to consider alternatives that might meet multiple needs. We see everything as do or die and in land use decisions, often end up in court appealing unfavorable outcomes or defending our victories to a higher authority.

In the case of Mountain Springs, developer Bill Barrett and his partners did a wise thing. They pulled back from getting all of what they wanted – a larger development – to ask Voters Choice and others opposed to Mountain Springs if there was a way to satisfy their needs and still build a project. Barrett offered to reduce the developers’ share of the pie to increase the share of others.

I don’t know who was more surprised: Voters Choice, the lawyers, the Board and county staff, or the community. Ultimately, developers and opponents arrived at something they did support and together asked the Board of Supervisors to approve. And that’s a very good thing.

Mountain Springs has been a divisive project for years. When I ran for office, many wanted to know how I would vote – pro or con. Because the Board of Supervisors has long been regarded as the chief pie-divider, both sides wanted assurance that I would vote for them to have full possession of the pie.

To the surprise of both sides, I was an advocate for sharing the pie, for looking for ways to make it bigger (exploring other options), and for making sure that both sides got what they needed, if not what they wanted. I was and am for demonstrating to our children that there is honor in consensus and working to meet mutiple needs and goals.

Not only did the agreement cause each side to take into account the needs of the other side, but it also allowed the community to begin to move past conflict to heal.  It showed our children that we can walk the talk by sharing, playing well together, and looking out for mutual interests.

The Rolling Stones were right on this much: you can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you do get what you need.

Kudos to Bill Barrett, his partners, and to Voters Choice and their allies for getting what they need and for allowing others to do the same. Well done.

Local organizations and nonprofits have seen a sharp increase in demand for services compounded by the state budget impasse. Dependent on state and federal funds and grants, many agencies have taken on loans, laid off staff and reduced wages, cut services, and some have closed temporarily.

With the signing of the state budget, funding will once again flow. But the budget as signed includes cuts in funding for many critical services and doesn’t fix the structural problems that were major contributors to a $15 billion shortfall this year. Grim warnings about next year are emanating from Sacramento. This is cause for concern, but when you add the proposed $700 billion federal bailout for Wall Street, it could get much worse here at home.

At a recent meeting of the YES Partnership (a multi-agency effort to deal with youth suicide and related issues), a broad array of local government and nonprofit services representatives realized a contingency plan to fill inevitable funding gaps is critically important. We need to look at the ways we already function independently and collaboratively and determine how to function even more efficiently together.

So leaders from the county, nonprofit, agency, school, and faith-based communities are exploring new ways to meet the critical needs of these at risk Tuolumne County residents in the short and long term. We don’t know how it can be done, but we have to try. It will take determined focus, patience, and the hard work of many, many people.

Tuolumne County residents are courageous, compassionate, and community-minded. When we see someone in need and can help, we do. We’ll do it together.

Paula Authier, Mark Banks, Beetle Barbour, Ron Kopf, Jim O’Neil, George Segarini, and Jim Todd.

Give up?

Not only are they friends of mine, but they put aside a long history of contention and came to agreement so that the county could begin to address a major issue – the creation of more affordable housing here. They are the “interested parties” – housing advocates and building industry representatives – that hammered out the Ordinance approved by the BOS yesterday.

Giving credit where credit is due, without both sides’ ultimate cooperation, we wouldn’t have had 3 votes yesterday to approve the Ordinance. You see, there were at least several on the Board who want affordable housing, but wouldn’t vote for an Ordinance that everyone couldn’t live with. So they worked together and got it done for us… and our kids… and our future.

***

Laura Cianci wrote (http://www.uniondemocrat.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=25836):

“The controversy surrounding the Tuolumne County Inclusionary Ordinance has had developers, real estate agents and affordable-housing advocates arguing for years about what should be included in the ordinance and what constitutes market affordability.

Last month, the two sides together drafted three versions of the ordinance, finally agreeing on the terms of one, and leaving the three remaining contentious issues for the board to resolve. More than a dozen people showed up at the board meeting to present their sides of the debate and persuade the supervisors to vote for their position.”

***

Is the Ordinance perfect? Certainly not. Over time we may learn it needs to be tweaked in one way or another. We will deal with that as we go forward.

But let there be no doubt. Both sides definitely gave. And in the process, contributed to a new degree of public participation in government!

Credit and accolades for compromises and hard work is well-deserved by both sides. Thanks to Mike Laird who facilitiated, and Dick Pland for participating, as well.

Together they did! I’m proud and you should be too.