vision2020
Re: Old High School
I can agree with Steve Cook in that those public projects I like
should be funded with tax dollars and those I don't are wasteful. This is
certainly part of our democratic society. But there is more to supporting
or opposing spending tax dollars than just whether or not I like a project.
The concept that was recently used to explain the cost difference
between the two pools was that Moscow's pool will be built with public
money so naturally it would cost more. This is a problem. Why should I
support a public project that is funded solely thru tax dollars when the
same project could be built with private donations at a much less cost?
Why should I support a public works project that rejects private money
during the initial design phase? Why should I support a project that was
anticipated for ten years, but when needed, suddenly had to be done right
away.
My point is, I think, that support or opposition to spending tax
dollars may have more to do with the percieved lack of long term planning
than whether or not I "like" the project.
John
John and Laurie Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
----------
> From: Steve Cooke <scooke@uidaho.edu>
> To: 'Dale Goble' <gobled@uidaho.edu>
> Cc: 'vision2020@moscow.com'
> Subject: RE: Old High School
> Date: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 9:18 AM
>
> 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
Back to TOC