It's the dream of every economic development official.
Someone from the private sector comes into the community and invests millions of dollars to refurbish buildings and rescue dying businesses. As a result, more people start visiting. Sales tax dollars increase; property values go up, and best of all, the investor seeks no government handouts in return.
How could anyone have a problem with that?
In the village of Aurora, philanthropist Pleasant Rowland's work has elicited a chorus of opposition.
Certainly there are people in Aurora who praise what Rowland (a Wells College alumna who made a fortune creating the American Girl line of dolls and books) has brought to the village. But a growing number view Rowland's work as an unsolicited attempt to sanitize their historically rugged community.
It seems this resentment will only grow unless Rowland walks away, and that would be a disaster for Aurora, which until a few years ago, was like many other floundering upstate New York villages.
But there is another option for Rowland, and it's remarkably simple. She could start communicating directly with the community.
The most frequently heard complaint about Rowland has been her lack of accessibility. She speaks almost exclusively through other people, and won't address any criticism. Katie Waller, the Aurora Foundation's executive director, explains that Rowland is extremely private and communicates through Waller and the foundation.
Rowland may be private, but she has chosen to make very public real estate purchases in the village through her foundation. She can't have it both ways.
Rowland may be shy, but her approach comes across as condescending. She's an out-of-state resident (her permanent home is in Wisconsin) who has more decision-making power than anyone else in the village, and yet she refuses to talk with those who disagree with her.
Rowland should show up at a few village meetings, look people in the eye when she explains her decisions and ask for feedback from residents. Waller can still be Rowland's eyes and ears in Aurora on a day-to-day basis, but Rowland needs to speak for herself.
How could anyone have a problem with that?
In the village of Aurora, philanthropist Pleasant Rowland's work has elicited a chorus of opposition.
Certainly there are people in Aurora who praise what Rowland (a Wells College alumna who made a fortune creating the American Girl line of dolls and books) has brought to the village. But a growing number view Rowland's work as an unsolicited attempt to sanitize their historically rugged community.
It seems this resentment will only grow unless Rowland walks away, and that would be a disaster for Aurora, which until a few years ago, was like many other floundering upstate New York villages.
But there is another option for Rowland, and it's remarkably simple. She could start communicating directly with the community.
The most frequently heard complaint about Rowland has been her lack of accessibility. She speaks almost exclusively through other people, and won't address any criticism. Katie Waller, the Aurora Foundation's executive director, explains that Rowland is extremely private and communicates through Waller and the foundation.
Rowland may be private, but she has chosen to make very public real estate purchases in the village through her foundation. She can't have it both ways.
Rowland may be shy, but her approach comes across as condescending. She's an out-of-state resident (her permanent home is in Wisconsin) who has more decision-making power than anyone else in the village, and yet she refuses to talk with those who disagree with her.
Rowland should show up at a few village meetings, look people in the eye when she explains her decisions and ask for feedback from residents. Waller can still be Rowland's eyes and ears in Aurora on a day-to-day basis, but Rowland needs to speak for herself.