Development Choices

The midterm primary election time is nigh. That means, of course, that in election pamphlet across the country candidates will be toting their commitment to development.

Candidates for city office, county jobs, and Port Commissioners will be toting their commitment to development. There will be a lot talk about they have, and will continue to work on development, or that they will make sure the constituency they are running to represent will get lots of new and improved development. Mainly, there will be promises of economic development, with an occasional mention of environmental stewardship.

But what is “development”? How are we supposed to interpret what kind of “development” these elected official will want to implement?

Few of those that will be advocating for development will consider, or be aware of, the definition of the Bruntland Report – a report that generated the concept of sustainable development.

According the the report,

development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society. A development path that is
sustainable in a physical sense could theoretically be pursued even in a rigid social and political setting. But physical sustainability cannot be secured unless development policies pay attention to such considerations as changes in access to resources and in the distribution of costs and benefits. Even the narrow notion of physical sustainability implies a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation.

Succinctly, sustainable development “is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

When we vote, it’s important to consider what kind of development these want-to-be elected officials mean when they say they want to promote development. Does that development meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future – or even present –generations to meet their own needs?