Bradley Beck recounts how contractors replacing his town’s water meters cut the roots of mature trees, many of which stood more than 40 feet tall, and left his neighbors saying that somebody should do something. He called a neighborhood meeting, 14 neighbors attended the next Town Council session, and the town halted the project after its interim town administrator acknowledged, “We screwed up.” Beck argues that every citizen has a duty to be self-assertive. For several days, that was the phrase I heard repeatedly from my neighbors. The town I live in had hired a contractor to replace water meters located in the public right-of-way in front of our homes. Residents received notice taped to their doors only two days before work began. Soon afterward, a backhoe arrived and started digging.At first glance, it seemed like a routine public works project. But as the excavation continued, it became obvious that something was wrong. In many yards, contractors dug holes nearly six feet deep. The problem was that many of the water meters sat beneath mature trees whose roots had grown around them over decades. To gain access to the meters, large roots were cut and removed.These were not small ornamental trees. Many stood over forty feet tall and had been growing for more than twenty years. Their roots provided stability and nourishment. Severing those roots created legitimate concerns about the trees’ health and whether they could withstand future storms. A tree that is weakened below ground may not show signs of distress immediately, but the devastating consequences can appear months or even years later.
No one disputed the Town’s authority to maintain utility infrastructure. Evidently the Town had plans for this project for several years yet kept delaying it. The issue was not what the Town was doing, but how it was doing it. Residents had received little warning, minimal explanation, and no opportunity to ask questions before the work began. What was presented as a simple infrastructure project suddenly appeared to carry significant risks to property, safety, and the neighborhood environment.
My first instinct was to contact Town officials directly. I sent emails to the mayor, trustees, and several administrators. To my surprise, some of the officials I contacted, including individuals who lived in the neighborhood, were unaware that the work was taking place. I believed that once they learned what was happening, someone would step in and address the concerns.
Nothing happened.
After several days, I realized that waiting for others to act was not enough. The complaints I continued hearing from neighbors all shared the same theme; somebody should do something. The problem, of course, is that “somebody” rarely appears. In a democratic republic, citizens often must become that somebody themselves.
I posted information on a social media platform and invited neighbors to attend a meeting at our community park the following Saturday. About twenty residents showed up. The Town’s Communications representative attended as well and provided an update on the project. During the discussion, residents shared their concerns and frustration, but more importantly, we began organizing around a common objective: ensuring that the Town heard us.
Several people suggested attending the next Town Council meeting. Having spent years participating in Toastmasters and speaking during public comment sessions, I shared some advice on how to make a two-minute presentation effective. Public officials hear complaints all the time. What captures their attention are clear facts, concise arguments, and respectful requests for action.
When the meeting day arrived, fourteen neighbors attended the Town Council session. Four of us spoke during public comment, and many others who could not attend submitted emails to the trustees expressing their concerns.
In my remarks, I focused on several questions. Why was the Town replacing water meters that were functioning properly? Why was a project that had been delayed for years suddenly being rushed forward without sufficient communication? Who would be responsible if root damage killed a mature tree or destabilized it? Why were deep excavation holes left open in residential areas? Had adequate environmental and safety precautions been taken? Why were residents given so little time to prepare or seek information?
More importantly, I argued that the issue extended beyond water meters. The trees at risk were important community assets. They provided shade, beauty, wildlife habitat, stormwater management, and increased property values. Replacing a piece of not needed equipment should not automatically justify sacrificing something that took decades to grow.
We asked the Town to pause the project until residents could receive a full explanation of the project’s necessity, costs, risks, and impacts. We requested independent arborist evaluations, clear liability policies, and meaningful opportunities for public input before additional work occurred.
Then came the moment that surprised all of us. After several hours of Town business, the interim Town Administrator addressed the audience. By then, only one neighbor and I remained. Speaking openly and candidly, she acknowledged the situation with three simple words:
“We screwed up.”
Those words mattered.
Government institutions rarely admit mistakes so plainly. The Town acknowledged that communication among departments had been inadequate and that planning and coordination had fallen short of expectations. As a result, the project was halted. Excavation sites were filled in, damaged yards were restored, and Town staff began reevaluating their approach.
The long-term condition of the affected trees remains uncertain. Some may recover fully, while others may not. Time will provide those answers. Yet regardless of the outcome, the experience taught me an important lesson about citizenship.
Too often people believe that government exists as something separate from themselves. They see elected representatives and administrators as the people responsible for solving problems while residents remain passive observers. But effective government requires participation from both sides. Public representatives have a duty to serve the community, and citizens have a duty to speak up when something appears wrong.
Being self-assertive does not mean being argumentative or hostile. It means respectfully expressing concerns, asking difficult questions, and refusing to remain silent when legitimate issues arise. Self-assertiveness creates accountability, but it also creates dialogue. It gives both citizens and public officials an opportunity to better understand one another and work toward solutions.
To the Town’s credit, representatives listened. They reconsidered their actions and adjusted. In doing so, they demonstrated that local government could work as intended when residents become engaged in the process.
Aristotle taught that virtue often lies in finding the middle path between extremes. In civic life, that middle path exists between passivity and aggression. Citizens should neither remain silent nor seek confrontation for their own sake. Instead, they should engage thoughtfully, respectfully, and confidently.
That balance is only possible when people understand their duty to be self-assertive. My experience in my town reminded me that positive change often begins when ordinary citizens stop waiting for somebody else to act and act themselves.
https://kimmonson.com/featured_articles/somebody-should-do-something/?tvci=L5NAf_s5wPIZWo8-ocQKte90wJbLZK2rhu1Syx_OO9Q!
