My city (La Mure in Isère, 5,000 inhabitants) is trying to create a town square (right now, it's just parking lots). The city hall attempted a temporary urbanism approach, but there was a strong backlash from shop owners. In the end, six months later, no one's complaining anymore, and we're still waiting for the predicted death of businesses... but well.

To move forward, the city launched a vote on three scenarios, open to everyone: https://purpoz.com/project/vote-scenario-pasteur/questionnaire/questionnaire-1

Personally, I think it's good to let people vote, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am that it's the right approach. It's like if a dealer asked his clients for their opinion on getting less drugs. I wonder if, in the end, this won't just turn into a "parking-light" version because people struggle to see beyond parking. But at the same time, this is democracy.

I don’t have an answer, but it makes me think about the limits of democratic action when trying to change something under strong pressure from an established system. In the end, wouldn’t it be better to take direct political action, have the courage to deal with the initial backlash, and then, once it’s done, everyone’s happy? (That’s what was done when the main street was redeveloped.)

It’s a bit depressing because... what’s the alternative?