At last look, an article in the Springfield News-Leader regarding a report to the City Council by The Network had generated 102 comments.  The report in question—actually a local follow-up to a report generated last year—apparently infuriated some and frightened others.

Following an informal survey of young professionals in the Springfield area, attorney Ryan DeBoef indicated that The Network had identified four issues that interfered with drawing additional young professionals to Springfield or keeping our young graduates from leaving the area to seek work elsewhere.

These issues were expansion and development of biking routes and trails; banning smoking in restaurants, bars, and workplaces; highlighting entrepreneurship and small businesses to help create jobs; and address the lack of ethnic and racial diversity in the community.

Receiving the fewest comments was the expansion of bike routes and trails. Springfieldians love their parks and have repeatedly voted to continue the sales tax devoted to parks programs.

Also, everyone was pretty much in agreement on the need for additional, good-paying jobs in Springfield, although some of the comments tried to turn the discussion into a generational issue—i.e., why not jobs for the unemployed or underemployed professionals in Springfield now (translated “older workers”) rather than recruit and retain young professionals.

The third issue is one that has generated controversy in Springfield each time it’s been brought forward—banning or reducing smoking in public places.  I don’t think anyone thinks that our current ordinance is either fair or effective, setting out—as it does—different categories of smoking versus non-smoking based on amount of alcohol sales.  However, with the recent certification of petitions by the City Clerk, voters will probably decide this issue at the April election.

Probably every adult in Springfield, at one time or another, has said, “Springfield is a great place to live.”  And that’s true.  We have great parks and trails, a wonderful art museum, a highly-rated school system, and tremendous medical facilities. But rarely do you hear someone say that Springfield is a welcoming community.

We even have a phrase: you’re a “come-here” if you’ve arrived in Springfield within the last 25 years.  That’s means you’re not really accepted as a Springfieldian for a long time.  And if your skin color is different, or your religion is not of the mainstream, or you’re poor, or you are one of a variety of other differences, the welcome is even colder.

This is what The Network was getting at in their report to City Council.  The issue is not that Springfield is the second whitest city in its size behind Portland, Maine. The issue is how we treat people who come to Springfield to work, to go to school, and to live.  For one, I want to thank The Network for this report.  Springfield needs to have this conversation

And the discussion must be civil.  We have enough of the finger-pointing, talk-real-loud, chest-thumping variety on our talk radio stations and our cable stations. Those are not civil conversations.  We seriously need to sit down and examine how we as Springfieldians treat each other and how we want to be treated.

The Golden Rule would be a good place to begin.