Consensus, Truth-seeking, and Moral Equivalency

How one decides is as important as what one decides

Evan Tuchinsky of the ER has been attending several meetings of the Community Development Committee and wrote an editorial on this subject in last Friday’s paper. You can find the full text here: https://www.chicoer.com/2025/01/17/developments-on-growth-committee-city-insider/

In response, I offer here a few personal observations. First, the goal of this committee was never to “build consensus.” The goal is truth-seeking. Not everyone in the room can always be in “learning” mode. Sometimes, people have to say something that others have the opportunity to learn from. Second, a knee-jerk tendency to assume moral equivalency is lazy, motivated by a desire to avoid making a distinction between right and wrong.

Evan is right about one thing; these meetings aren’t cheap. He and I both are thinking about the value of the efforts. To be didactic, as is my tendency, perhaps we should begin by looking at the differences between “consensus building” and “truth-seeking.”

Consensus refers to a general agreement or harmony among group members. It prioritizes unity, cooperation, and collective acceptance over individual dissent.

On the positive side, it fosters cooperation by creating a sense of solidarity and shared ownership of decisions. Consensus can lead to smoother implementation since everyone has agreed to the outcome. Perhaps most tellingly, it helps avoid conflicts, reduces divisions, and ensures group harmony.

On the downside, it favors compromise over accuracy: In seeking agreement, groups might settle for "middle-ground" solutions that are less optimal or even incorrect. Social pressures to conform or the desire to avoid conflict may suppress dissenting voices, leading to groupthink. Finally, reaching a consensus can be time-consuming, especially in diverse groups with conflicting interests.

Truth-seeking focuses on uncovering the most accurate, objective, or valid understanding of a matter, irrespective of individual preferences or group harmony.

In its favor is the goal of reaching objective outcomes. It prioritizes evidence, logic, and critical analysis over agreement. Decision-making is improved by focusing on accuracy because truth-seeking leads to solutions better aligned with reality. Truth-based outcomes are less likely to fail when implemented because they are grounded in reality.

However, a truth-seeking process can be conflict-prone. Truth-seeking values the surfacing of disagreement, as individuals challenge assumptions and argue for competing interpretations. Truth is often elusive, and debates can become mired in ambiguity and increasing levels of uncertainty. Feelings can be hurt, as some participants may feel marginalized if their perspectives are dismissed as "untruthful."

Here is a summary of the distinctions, if you are a “put it in a table” kind of person:

This committee is about land use, the validity of General Plans, and the specific objections to Valley’s Edge. The entirety of Title 7 and CEQA law is not to build consensus but to distinguish fact from fiction in order to reach an accurate decision regarding the proper balance between the competing interests of the stakeholders. That is what planning staff in both development companies and local government are paid for. That is why public input is built into the process.

The Committee was never designed or expected to produce “consensus.” If one wishes to understand what is happening in these meetings, the most fundamental insight is grasping the goal. Tuchinsky compared the process to a Congressional Hearing, and his point is made by the ongoing confirmation hearings taking place in the Senate.

But a better analogy is the courtroom. The justice system has three main objectives: 1) establish the facts; 2) apply the law to the facts; and 3) issue a judgment that must be respected and followed.

Here are some facts that preceded the formation of this committee.

Developers of Valley’s Edge spent more than a decade and a few million dollars in the process defined by Title 7 and CEQA, implementing the General Plan. In cooperation with planning staff and the public process, they designed a plan for developing the private land known as the Doe/Mill Special Planning Area. The General Plan designated this property as the “right place” for future development. It remains so.

That effort culminated in the approval of a Specific Plan by the local jurisdiction, the City Council, which concluded the plan met all of the requirements of the law, including the General Plan and CEQA. As part of that process, they adopted two resolutions certifying the EIR, and several ordinances, including one to approve the Specific Plan.

That was approved on a vote of 5-1 because Tom Van Overbeek, who says he was in favor, disqualified himself. After the November elections, any future action by the council on this matter presumably will be tied 3-3. Tie votes are a defeat.

Aqualliance and Sierra Club immediately sued the city to decertify the EIR. That case is being stayed pending the existence of a future project.

Smart Growth Advocates, a coalition of local activists, many of whom attend every meeting of the Committee and some serve on the committee itself, filed a petition to void that approval by referendum. On March 5, the vote was successful against the plan.

Because of a well-founded belief that the “No on Valley’s Edge” campaign was based on false and misleading claims, a Community Development Committee was conceived in an effort to apply truth-seeking standards to the issues.

The committee is co-chaired by Tom Van Overbeek and Addison Winslow, who alternate running the meetings. The goal was to establish a factual basis for determining if a General Plan, or any future General Plan has meaning in light of the referendum powers of “ballot-box planning.”

That is in direct contrast to the meticulous and ordered process defined by land-use law, which includes a mandate to implement the General Plan. There is a long history of court cases involving the intersection of Title 7 and referendums. That conflict reaches beyond land use, and into the California Constitution versus its laws and US constitutional guarantees.

The developers and planning professionals testifying at these meetings believe the characterization by the proponents of the referendum was often false and misleading. A critical post-referendum question is where this leaves the City planners, given that this referendum essentially voided the entirety of Title 7, and the General Plan. Any future development that dares to do comprehensive planning faces the risk of the rug being pulled out from under their project after all the years and dollars are gone. The consequences of “ballot-box planning” are to encourage the universally disfavored “piecemeal development” by subdivision map, rather than the comprehensive planning process designed to implement the General Plan.

The Committee was conceived as a forum for separating facts and evidence from unchecked and unverified political rhetoric. It was never imagined that the result would be “consensus.” As we witnessed in the last meeting, the frustration of referendum proponents demonstrates the hazards of pursuing consensus over truth-seeking.

The woman who expressed her frustrations with the information presented by Jim Stevens, a professional planner, seemed to be claiming it was unfair for her opinions not to count just as much as his data and experience. Among the hazards of consensus building is the power to prevent its attainment. Those devoted to an outcome will stubbornly withhold their consent, no matter the volume of evidence to the contrary. Those who refuse to acknowledge the views of others cannot compromise, and compromise is the essence of consensus. Facts, however, cannot be compromised or negotiated.

Looking at the composition of the Committee, on Tom’s “side” is Doug Guillon, who is one of several partners in Valley’s Edge. Guillon Inc. has built thousands of housing units all over the state. Jim Stevens has 40 years of experience as a planner in Chico, including working on Mariam Park, the “development darling” of the left. Also serving was Pam Figge, a staff planner for over 40 years in Chico, Paradise, and elsewhere. She recently resigned out of frustration with the process. A quick review of the background of the rest of the committee helps explain why.

The “other side” is led by Addison Winslow, a self-taught housing amateur who implies that housing and land use are matters best motivated by social justice. Then there is Eric Nilsson, an English teacher who rose through the ranks to Principal of PV and Inspire, and the current chair of BEC. He wants the entire property preserved as open space. Ann Bykerk-Kauffman is a CSUC professor of Earth and Environmental Science, who studies one particular earthquake fault. None have ever built or planned to build a house, have done an EIR, or have any career experience in housing, construction, planning, or other professional experience equal to the other panelists.

I don’t know how to express my next thought without being disparaging to Addison’s “team.” Imagine you are Tiger Woods and are forced to play with an amateur who just picked up the game. The amateur exudes unearned confidence. There is so much about the game the amateur doesn’t know, he has no appreciation for what a player at Tiger’s level has achieved. At various points in the round, he presumes to give Tiger “pointers.” What is going through Tiger’s mind? How does he act? How should the two of them reach a consensus on what competitive golfing requires? Their golfing relationship is doomed in the absence of the necessary humility required to learn from a pro.

That was pretty much Pam Figge’s experience, and I think the experience of every professional person who has presented. To listen to presentations from amateurs on how housing markets should be understood is painful to those who have made it their life’s work. Yet they proceed with confidence that they have discovered something no one else in the room ever thought of.

As we’ve heard repeatedly from those whose careers are in land use planning, the principles of Smart Growth have been understood and implemented for decades. It is nothing “new.”

Thus, despite Evan’s criticisms to the contrary, it has largely been a process where the “liberal” side presents their views on the need for social justice in housing, and how all new construction should be aimed at the “missing middle,” meaning that new construction should be attainable by the median income earner in Butte County, and how the referendum power entitles them an equal place at the table, despite their lack of expertise and credentials.

The “conservative” side has largely engaged in education, patiently explaining how planning works, what LAFCO does, what “Urban Sprawl” really is and how Chico has largely avoided it. It has been a sincere attempt to try to educate the amateurs, who hopefully would be in the “learning” mode Evan advocates for. It has not been evident. On the other hand, there has been an obvious willingness to embrace those ideas that make sense, and by the way, have been familiar to the professionals long before this committee formed.

In some ways, the very idea of credentials and expertise is being challenged. It is as if the amateurs in the room believe running a referendum campaign puts them on a professional par with those with Bonafide credentials in planning.

What has been particularly frustrating to some has been the almost entire lack of clarity about what the “liberals” want, or any specifics about what they insist was “faulty” with Valley’s edge, and what they want instead. If they want to veto the mandates of the General Plan, what is their alternative? So far, until very recently, it has been conducted like a seminar, where each co-chair organized presentations from those they believed could make their point. It has been a lopsided affair, but not for lack of trying.

When they claimed open land was a buffer to wildfires, we heard from the Fire Chief about the falsity of that claim. When they asserted that infill was sufficient to meet growth needs, we heard from the head of LAFCO and other experts on how the challenges of infill can’t and never has met the needs of the housing gap.

When they said we should follow the principles of Smart Growth, they heard how those principles have been followed and integrated by planning professionals for years, it was nothing new. When they claimed greenfield development was “urban sprawl” they were reminded that all housing was once a greenfield development, and the only important issue is how it is done. Presentations from planners and developers demonstrated how we have continually improved our planning process over the years.

The heads of LAFCO and Community Development gave presentations on the Sphere of Influence, and how much better Chico has been than many others in Butte County at staying within their city limits and LAFCO’s designated sphere of influence for future growth and development. We heard an explanation of what a Special Planning Area is, and why they exist. Valley’s Edge is one of five SPAs.

When they claimed the “people have spoken” experts like Pam Figge described the immense harms of “ballot-box planning” and how it forces the exact opposite of what proponents claim to want, piecemeal development instead of comprehensive planning. She also pointed out that the actual majority that rejected Valley’s Edge was around 25% of eligible voters, hardly a resounding mandate for the Chico that will be here for future generations.

The contentious meeting Evan refers to revolved around the question of “where is the right place” for development. Jim Stevens efficiently described the choices with maps and data. Either we follow the General Plan and the designated areas for growth which targets the non-agricultural east and south, or we break the Greenline and go west on prime agricultural land. That General Plan was developed, by the way, through a very public and transparent process and adopted by a “liberal” City Council.

This upset the gallery, largely made up of those who have devoted themselves to ballot-box planning. One person from the audience expressed her frustration with not getting equal time to give her opinions of Jim’s presentation. In an unusual move by Van Overbeek, she was even given the floor to explain her frustration, which amounted to whining about not being “heard”. This is one shortcoming of the consensus goal; there are bound to be people who feel “left out” if things don’t go their way, even if they are wrong on the facts and evidence.

Early in the committee meetings, the problem of distinguishing between facts and opinions was mentioned. Some people don’t believe facts exist, but only opinions based on being beneficiaries of whatever power structure they rely upon. Addison asserted there was no way to tell facts from opinions. If that were true, we should accept that court trials are a farce, and judges rule arbitrarily or by popular demand. Thankfully, most people understand the difference between facts and opinions. Regrettably, emotions and opinions win elections, not facts.

Imagine if criminal guilt or innocence was decided by a mob of uninformed voters who registered their “opinions” by popular vote? We don’t allow that for a reason. Instead, we follow a process designed to remove as much emotion and opinion as possible and instead rely on objective facts and evidence. In other words, we choose informed truth-seeking over consensus, and orderly processes over popular and transient opinions.

That can be upsetting to those who stubbornly hold onto their beliefs that all opinions are equal, and therefore the majority vote should decide all issues wherever different opinions exist. That might be fine, assuming that every voter attends every meeting, reviews all the data, and has some education in the planning process and the law. No one pretends that is the case.

The “No on Valley’s Edge” crowd, who consistently pack the committee room, seemed to believe Stevens’s presentation should be put to a vote because they held a visible majority in the room and their opinions would “win.” That position implies that all major decisions should be made by consensus, and if that fails, buy direct democracy powers. With the exception of California and a few other states, that is not the system of government we embrace.

Popular campaigns are not held to the same standards of truth as say a courtroom or a comprehensive planning process, both of which require parties to navigate all the rules, public hearings, laws, and requirements to reach the finish line. If you just want what you want, and have a “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” mentality, you would naturally strive to create a majority perception based on emotional rhetoric aimed at those with no personal skin in the game. Some people don’t think beyond their current lifestyles, leaving future generations to fend for themselves.

Those people will never grant even an inch toward the goal of consensus. The committee, for those who have been paying close attention, has clearly demonstrated this fact.

The Committee is about to conclude the “discovery” phase, culminating in a presentation by Bill Brouhard, the chief planner for Valley’s Edge. He will be presenting in detail just what is and is not in the Valley’s Edge Specific Plan. That will explode the heads of those who refuse to have their narrative disturbed by facts.

Always looking for moral equivalency is lazy, because it assumes discernment is unnecessary. It allows one to distribute blame equally by default and is itself a strategy of conflict avoidance. If we assume misbehavior over there is offset by behavior over here, no one can be blamed and no one can be mad at you. Defaulting to moral equivalency is a reflection of consensus mentality that rejects the idea that truth exists and can be sought. If we can’t all agree, then power becomes the goal. Power-seeking and truth-seeking are not morally equivalent.

Evan points out the probability that this gulf in understanding and political maneuvering will carry over into the next General Plan cycle. It surely will, as it always does. But majority/minority swings in the council are not the issue. The planning horizon for General Plans is 30 years or more.

Seeking control of outcomes in not about consensus or truth-seeking. It is about power. We want the best General Plan we can imagine, and once we decide, it is worthless if we don’t follow it. How we decide is the more fundamental issue. “Ballot box planning” is an approach for winning the power to decide a matter, not an honest truth-seeking endeavor.

Regardless of how or what the General Plan says, if its reliability is subject to the whims of referendum, what’s the point of going to all the trouble and expense of producing one at all? If comprehensive planning takes a decade or more to accomplish, who will engage in that expensive endeavor in the face of the power of veto by “ballot-box planning”? The likelihood of unanticipated consequences is reflected in the folk wisdom, “Watch out for what you wish for.”

There will not be a consensus from this committee. To believe that was ever possible is a pipe dream. Those unwilling to learn from those with more knowledge and experience will hold fast to their ideology, and ideology is never compromised.

What it will produce is a record and a set of recommendations to the council. They will be arrived at by an honest evaluation of the record and probably a majority vote. Like the City Council, with Pam’s resignation, that vote will likely be tied 3-3. The alternative is two complete sets of recommendations, one put forward by the professionals, and the other put forth by the politics of Smart Growth Advocates.

If history is any measure, this will lead to rudeness and some ugliness. But pay attention. It will not come from one side of this debate but will most definitely come from the other. This is the fallacy of moral equivalency. It allows one to ignore observable facts.

Not all morals are equivalent, and not all bad behavior is evenly distributed. If we can’t see that, we must accept our blindness and abandon all hope.