Coming into a new deliberation, I was not too sure what to expect. Being as my own deliberation was different from most due to its setting in a different location and abnormally large attendance, the two events ended up feeling different despite the identical base structures. This deliberation conducted in the normal stage at Webster’s focused on the issue of gentrification in lower income neighborhoods as the average cost of living rises. I noticed that the introduction stressed the importance of audience participation and sought to create a comfortable environment for those in the audience. I was glad, as this allowed the personal stakes phase to flow smoothly with enough points to discuss within the time allotted.
The first approach looked at the effectiveness of bigger business coming into low income neighborhoods, therefore speeding along the gentrification process but also theoretically improving the job market and economic health of the neighborhood. When speaking about this topic I noticed that the audience seemed more polarized than normal, most likely to the nature of this issue directly affecting those from lower income neighborhoods. Questions from the audience came quicker, and the richness of these testimonies seemed deeper. This also meant however, that the topic passed by quicker and we eventually reached a standstill where the approach team manually shifted the conversation to making citizens aware of their own laws and rights when new businesses take land in their neighborhood.
The second approach focused on the possibility of introducing community programs to keep these local businesses alive. The approach team focused on laying out the framework for some of these possible community programs including grants and loans as incentives for doing business. The audience response was smaller than the previous approaches response, so questions arrived slower than usual. Eventually the discussion evolved to the balance between social and human cost with funding these programs, but as the topics were less polarizing questions dwindled. I noticed that my own participation had also declined by this point from the previous section. When this discussion fizzled out, the team members came out with their conclusion and the final team took the stage.
The third approach talked about zoning, meaning the segregation of cities into zones to preserve the original areas while allowing for gentrification. This topic was an overly polarizing topic like approach one’s, so audience participation was at a high for the deliberation. I noticed many more personal experiences shared from the audience, most likely because this one was a relatable topic for many. Even though this discussion was more heated than the others, it went on for the longest due to the sheer volume of personal responses. Most of these responses were negative in nature, drawing the conclusion that it is much easier to get the audience to criticize an idea than it is to support one unanimously.
The conclusion of the deliberation was the shortest part of the event. It served to collect finishing statements from each of the audience members highlighting new information learned and new perspectives created. For myself personally, I was able to say that I learned of a new process in our society and was able to form my personal opinions as well.