RE: Old High School

[Steve Cooke <scooke@uidaho.edu>]

Dale,

 The issue that you raise is key, in my view. I would describe it as a case 
of selective perception. The rationale goes like this: public services that 
I like are "natural" and "obvious," ones that I don't like are "waste," 
fraud," and "corruption" or worse.

 Public policy according to Valfredo Pareto is a function of power, 
knowledge, and psychology. The psychology of pubic policy is to get people 
to want to do what you think they have to do through the re-framing of 
perception. This re-framing process is both the cause and effect of 
selective perception, in my view.

The result of perception manipulation in the absence of knowledge is 
demagoguery and polarization rather than problem solving. The Pros and the 
Cons are both equally capable of using selective perception if it suits 
their purpose on a given issue.

One way out of the battle of the perceptions is to raise it to the 
conscious level as you have done. This can be further reinforced with the 
knowledge component. For example,  where does the tax money in Moscow go. 
Which services have priority? Who benefits and who pays and how much?

However, a cost of this more explicit approach is the added stress in the 
community that comes with more people clearly knowing the winners and 
losers of a policy decision. Ignorance is not bliss, but it may reduce 
social tension in the short run. To quote the octopus in the movie  "Little 
Mermaid," 'life is full of hard choices.'

Steve Cooke

-----Original Message-----
From:	Dale Goble [SMTP:gobled@uidaho.edu]
Sent:	Wednesday, July 08, 1998 6:51 AM
To:	Mike Sohns
Cc:	vision2020@moscow.com; Bruce Haglund
Subject:	Re: Old High School


On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Mike Sohns wrote:

> I have been objecting to the expenditure of public funds for the 
renovation
> of the old high school.  We all subsidize automobiles through property
> taxes, gasoline taxes, and income taxes to name a few.

I seem to be missing something here.  It is permissible to subsidize
automobiles but not a community center?  Why should it be necessary to
raise funds privately for a community center but continue to subsidize
automobiles?

It is this type of assumption that I find so inexplicable in arguments of
those who oppose spending of tax revenues for public purposes: those
making the arguments often find such expenditures for some purposes just
fine.  For example, it is just fine to spend public money to subsidize
automobiles but not public transportation.  More generally, it is
permissible to expend public funds to subsidize private economic activity
but not social activity.

Dale Goble
Moscow