This is a response to an Op-Ed piece in my hometown newspaper.
Vincent J. Curtis
9 Jan 2014
Sirs;
As a connoisseur of argumentation, I found the article written by P. S.
and D. P. to be an interesting specimen. The rhetoric was
superficially very good, but the reasoning of the piece was dogmatic,
presumptuous, and ultimately appalling. Delivered as a speech, it would
be rabble-rousing. That means it would work on unthinking people.
But people who are able to think calmly for themselves would dismiss it.
It was presumptuous of them to assert that Hamilton is trying to reinvent
itself, rebrand itself, and rebuild after suffering a double whammy.
Hamilton is trying to none of this; it is what they think Hamilton ought
to do, but presently is not.
They say that in the next election Hamiltonians can choose to renew their city
for the next generation, or be left behind. A false choice could hardly
be more obvious.
Like President Obama, they seek not the tangible aspects of change, but a
change in attitudes and political climate, a fundamental change. Apparently,
the natural evolution of the city is not good enough for them.
They say that somebody should be learning from grassroots leadership.
Well, what is city government for? and who, exactly, are the grassroots
leadership? You would think that city councillors constituted the
leadership of the grassroots. That is what their job is, after all.
By grassroots leadership, they seem to mean self-appointed busybodies who
can’t get themselves elected.
City Hall needs to be open to everyone, they say. Well, in general, that
sounds reasonable. But what is one to do when unreasoning stupidity
presents itself frequently at city hall?
They want to improve the quality of our streets. Well, I do too.
They all should be well paved, and they are not. But what S.
and P. want to do is reduce main traffic arteries, streets essential to
commerce and life in the city, to the status of residential streets. They
seem to say that kids ought to be able to play road hockey on Upper James, Main
Street, Mohawk Road, Cannon, Rymal Road, and Victoria Avenue.
They want to shaft property developers with new charges, with all the
righteousness of the Occupy Wall Streeters.
They want to run an I heart Hamilton campaign to raise the city’s profile
internationally. What this expense was supposed to achieve went unmentioned.
They want us all to be more politically involved in city business than we are
at present. That may mean that we get twice as many political pamphlets
from our city councillors as we do at present. Otherwise, that statement
is more applicable to the school boards than to city council.
Of course, we have to spend a cool billion upon the LRT - the “game-changer.”
And bike lanes, which are not “social services” and are not “costs” but
“investments.”
This rhetoric for the mob: for those already convinced.
By the time the folly in this sort of program is found out, it will be too
late. Kind of like how Obamacare is working out in the United States, of
which it was said that you had to pass it in order to find out what was in it.
What this city does not need is a large dose of experimentation by sorcerer’s
apprentices. The city should be left to evolve naturally and with a
prudent eye towards the budget and keeping costs low. Often, the less
activist the government, the better. Activist government is mistake-prone and costly.
The city has enough trouble keeping its streets paved. It does not need
to take on large and expensive new endeavors.
Regards;
No comments:
Post a Comment