Fairfield is an unusual town. As a traditional Midwest rural community it has a long and historically significant legacy. But as an oasis of progressive-thought and green design, the town has risen to be one of the most exciting, noteworthy cities in Iowa – if not America. As you can imagine, the clash of these two things can give rise to troubles.
As the creator of the Fairfield, Iowa Fanpage on Facebook, I’ve been blessed with a certain insight into the structures and communication problems of the town. It’s become apparent to me that the town these days no longer divides along the traditional “’roo (meditators) vs. townie” lines it once did (or even “town” and “gown” as it had during the Parson’s College era). Rather, you could say the town now splits between what I’d call traditionalists and progressives. The overlap between roos/progressives and traditionalists/townies is certainly large, but no longer accurate – there are now quite a few people in Fairfield who have no interest in meditation, but do want to see the town progress and change.
The traditionalists believe that Fairfield is – or more accurately was – a fine town, the pride of Iowa, and is being degraded by the restless, crazy influence of the progressives.
The progressives believe that Fairfield was some small, unremarkable town, but can be made into a utopia, a green mecca for social and environment causes, a future slowed or outright opposed by the traditionalists.
I believe that, for the most part, what causes friction between these two groups is a lack of understanding and communication skills. I’ll show you what I mean by the debate over the Quiet Zone.
Train traffic has increased significantly over the past few years (on average, 15 trains a day in 2001 to 58 in 2006). In addition to this, train whistle technology has made it more effective (louder). More trains, each one being louder than the ones of ten, twenty, thirty years ago. Some progressives got quite fed up with it, and checked into things. As it turns out, you can make the train whistles stop – by making train track crossings safer than they are now.
I want to stress this point: If we upgrade the safety of track crossings, then whistles are no longer necessary. If you approached the traditionalists and said: Will you donate to increase safety at railroad crossings? I feel very certain they would donate and/or pass along that information to everyone they knew. Who would be opposed to increasing safety? A minor point (less train noise) would have been virtually unopposed.
But progressives think like progressives, and the increased safety was good bonus, but not the point. The point was being able to sleep at night, to rid the community of the annoyance. The sale of this idea to the community, then, was in a progressive vocabulary of increasing quality of life (putting the safety issue as a side point) – even to the extent of the project being named the Quiet Zone (as opposed to “The Safety Zone” or other titles).
This was a failure to understand traditionalists. They tend to be older, having lived here longer, and some of them know someone who was killed on the tracks, or was almost hit when the guards did not drop before the train came through, but was saved due to the horn.
On the posters promoting the Quiet Zone initiative, it reads “STOP THE TRAIN WHISTLE!”
To the surprise of progressives, quite a lot of people did not want to see a vital safety measure disappear, and certainly not to accommodate relative newcomers who just don’t like noise. The issue quickly boiled down to a perception that progressives are trying to warp the town to their bizarre needs, to the detriment of everyone else. The progressives are left repeating themselves over and over – things would be safer, the whistles are louder and more frequent than before, other towns are doing it, etc – but the damage is done.
I’m writing this post in hopes of bringing these two groups together in a mutual understanding of the key point: Both groups want what is best for the town. Both groups want this town to be the best around, to have everyone be happy and healthy.
We may disagree on how to do that, but the desire is the same. Traditionalists may want to bring in another factory like Dexter to increase employment and support the local economy. Progressives may want to create an edible forest/orchard for the community to use. Rather than dismiss one group or the other as unrealistic or ignorant, we should take the time to understand how the other side thinks and sees the world, and speak to them in that language.
Progressives respond well to words like: sustainable, green, off-grid, spiritual, giving, Earth, heart, body, soul, growing, intensive, intuitive, love, holy, saints, new, human, gardens, environment, peace, and so on.
Traditionalists respond well to words like: safety, tax-breaks/incentives, local government, democracy, industry, employment, maintenance, historical, trade, rural, agriculture, traditional values, religion, and so on.
As a progressive, it’s my duty to re-define what I see in terms that the entire community – including traditionalists – can understand.
An example: Let’s say I want to start a program that takes food wastes from restaurants and grocery stores and brings it to a city-run central composting area.
For progressives, I should talk about reduced landfill wastes, the increased abundance of local compost, and how it is a step towards self-sufficiency (now all we need is to grow the food locally, and we’ll be set!)
For traditionalists, I should talk about increased revenue for the city via sale of compost, the creation of new jobs, increased tourism (helping local businesses) and possible grant money coming in.
If something is a benefit to the community, it can definitely be shown as a boon in all different lights – a tight-rope to walk, perhaps in this community more than others, but well worth the effort up front. Without due consideration for both sides, it seems inevitable that tempers will flare and misunderstanding will occur… and that bickering helps no one.
So please remember, Fairfielders: when you present an idea for the benefit of the community (and you want it to succeed), be sure to take the balanced approach and include benefits to both progressives and traditionalists.




American history, and became as passionate about promoting Nauvoo and its history to prospective visitors as the residents were about their community. Ironically, Nauvoo had a unique set of challenges, as the people who had lived there for generations were initially at odds with newcomers. Those newcomers were the Mormons who regard Nauvoo as a major part of their religious history. As a result, many have chosen to reside there and many Mormon visitors from around the world are drawn there – sound somewhat familiar?
minutes. So when pressed, he summed it up as being with Jada and to attend events as a regular guy having fun with family and friends – to not be “on the job.” He loves to eat out in town and while doing so, to people watch, thoroughly enjoying Fairfield’s diversity.
Rustin clearly loves both of his jobs. He is passionate about promoting the unique community that Fairfield has become. For as he likes to say “Fairfield offers something for everyone, and you don’t have to look very far for something that will make you smile.”
The short ‘n’ sweet: There’s a new Facebook Fan Page for Fairfield – ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4c2791aa-4b99-4c38-80e2-33216d6552ab)




Our first annual 






![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d3329fce-722d-4601-a37c-684fbf7c0016)









