Guns

If you think it's wonderful that kids keep getting massacred in schools, raise your hand.

Didn't raise it, did you? That means we've just agreed there's a problem. 

We haven't agreed on what to do.

It's not purely a gun problem. Some mix of pain, insecurity, lovelessness, hopelessness, anger, feeling left out, and too much TV (or video games) leaves a dangerous minority of our young people itching to shoot up a school and be famous for a day. (Other than Charles Alan Whitman, who shot up a college decades ago, I can't remember the name of a single idiot who's done that.)

But it ain't purely a people problem, either. The ready availability of guns helps make shootings, accidental or otherwise, the third leading cause of death among children. Ready availability of modern weapons of war contributes to school shootings. The NRA (like purveyors of stuff that pollutes our environment, induces cancer, or causes obesity or drug-dependency) muscles up with money and misinformation to avoid meaningful regulation or responsibility. 

Some say it's a mental illness problem – or that it's because we took prayer out of the schools, or don't spank kids any more. Increasing mental health and kids' values would help. But assume putting religion in schools would work. (whose religion? all of them? and which hasn't involved violence?) If it somehow discouraged young folks from massacring fellow students, you'd affect the problem in ten or fifteen years, when 19 year-olds would have experienced religion in schools since kindergarten. What do we do in the meantime?

Watching the anger at Monday's City Council meeting, I wished again that more people who know a lot about guns would help craft steps that could decrease deaths without unduly burdening responsible citizens. Although gun enthusiasts were angry, they seemed less angry and threatening than a similar group two years ago. When Mayor Miyagashima noticed that, and started asking if they thought background checks were a good step, instead of laughing or shouting they quietly said, “Yes. Sure.” I sensed that though they're still loyal to the NRA line, the continued bloodiness of schools is softening more folks' resistance to attempting a few sensible steps.

The NRA has its fans worked up that they'll lose their guns. Ain't gonna happen. Even if, politically, you could ban guns, it wouldn't work. It's too late. And the Second Amendment ain't going anywhere. In fact, the NRA's course – absolute opposition to anything that might decrease the bleeding but impair profits – is the only way imaginable that we'd eliminate the Second Amendment. A vast majority want gun-control. Only more and more shootings, with more and more NRA indifference and bluster, could conceivably make that vast majority so sick of guns it might try to amend the Constitution. 

It's a complex problem. Slogans and simple fixes won't work. Both sides say we should do what some other countries do; but we've a unique mix of ethnic diversity, open spaces and huge cities, and gun-related traditions. And constitutions protecting gun ownership.

The City Council is right to express concern. Those who brought guns to the council meeting shot themselves in the foot: they merely reminded others how easily a demented fool with a gun could kill scores of people. If I were a counselor, intimidation tactics would encourage me to vote against the would-be intimidators.

How about both sides bending a little to seek reasonable steps?

                                          -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 23March 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  During the week, a spoken version will air on KRWG (probably Wednesday morning and evening and again on Saturday) and KTAL, 101.5 FM, on Thursday.]

[By the way, we're going to have a two-hour radio discussion of these issues on KTAL 101.5 FM (which you can also stream at www.lccommunityradio.org) on Wednesday, 11 April, 8-10 a.m. on "Speak Up, Las Cruces!" with a real mix of viewpoints, including several gun owners of various political persuasions -- e.g. Lucas Herndon, a gun enthusiast whose politics are generally Progressive, Harvey Daiho Hilbert, a gun enthusiast who's also a Buddhist roshi, and Bev Courtney (a gun instructor and Tea Party stalwart) and William Webb (also very conservative), plus (briefly) Bill McCamley, Greg Smith, and others.  Haven't figured out just who'll speak when or how it will all work, but we'll have a mix of strong opinions, so it should be interesting.  I hope and believe these are people who won't just toss slogans back and forth at each other like snowballs.]

[I should probably mention that on KTAL, 101.5 FM, the Sunday Show -- this morning at 9 -- will replay our interview with Frank Zamora, former Baptist minister and current professor of philosophy and religion, and that from 8-10 a.m.this Wednesday morning "Speak Up, Las Cruces!", on 101.5 FM,  will feature:

8-9 Algernon D'Amassa, journalist, actor, theatre director, Buddhist teacher, and friend, with a break at 8:30 to talk about Dona Ana County with its PIO, Jess Williams.

9-10:

first 40-45 minutes: Brandon Gass, whose six-minute film will play at the famous Cannes Film Festival this year, along with his leading lady, and then for the last 15-20 minutes, Kevin Bixby concerning the lawsuit against the Border Wall, possible further protests at that site, and other environmental matters.]

You can also stream KTAL, Las Cruces's Community Radio Station, at www.lccommunityradio.org

 

Las Cruces Community Radio

Las Cruces Community Radio's station KTAL-LP

LCCOMMUNITYRADIO.ORG

Non-Conservatives Sweep 2017 City Elections

Tuesday was eventful for local governments here.

The Doña Ana County Commission announced a four-year contract with Fernando Macias to be the new county manager.

Then moderate to progressive candidates swept the city elections.

Gabe Vasquez got 70% of the vote in District 3; Yvonne Flores got a surprising 57% in District 6, beating incumbent Ceil Levatino; and District 5 incumbent Gill Sorg got 51% in a three-way race. Meanwhile Joy Goldbaum, the most progressive candidate in the Municipal Judge II race, got 51% against incumbent Kent Yalkut (29%) and Nelson Goodin (21%). 

 

These results reflect both relative contentment with the City Council's present course and strong discontent with the national political situation.

The Council has been generally progressive. Voters, knowing that, re-elected Sorg, booted Levatino (the most frequent dissenting vote), and added Vasquez, who was endorsed by retiring District 3 councilor Olga Pedroza. 

 

Businesses have voiced complaints in the past about permit processes and the like. The council and new City Manager Stuart Ed have taken steps to address such complaints. I hope those efforts continue. (Vasquez's business editor and Hispanic Chamber experience may prove useful.) Business is an important aspect of our community. It shouldn't dominate city politics, as it once did; but it deserves respect and fair treatment. Entrepreneurship deserves even more. 

 

The results were clearly a victory for shoe-leather. Progressive candidates and their supporters did a lot of canvassing. “We touched every door in the district, some of them three times,” one campaign manager said Friday. But there seemed to be a lot more newspaper and radio ads for Levatino and Montañez. Goldbaum walked a lot, and many people walked for her; but incumbent Yalkut bought many more (and much bigger) signs and newspaper ads. (Goodin spent nothing! Governor Martinez may well appoint him district judge, replacing Macias. He'd face another election next November.)

Some of the energy moving those shoes along our streets was generated by Donald Trump. His election, and his absurd and dangerous post-election conduct, awakened many people who can't do much about him but can try to keep local government sane, sensible, and caring. In Virginia, Washington State, and elsewhere, distaste for Trump fueled Democratic wins.

Some motivation was purely local. Many of Levatino's constituents were angry. That, plus the strong effort by and for Flores, turned a swing district strongly progressive. Voters know and respect Sorg, a decent man who really cares about water and quality-of-life issues, while Steve Montañez didn't inspire widespread affection. Vasquez's extremly strong qualifications and Bev Courtney's extreme politics and limited knowledge and experience made the District 3 race a mismatch. Gabe – just an outstanding candidate – had many more people walking the streets for him. He also had more money than Courtney, who didn't receive nearly as much funding from conservative and business interests as Levatino and Montañez. 

 

Meanwhile Macias is a promising choice as county manager – a post he's held before. (He was student body president when I was still around campus in the 1970's.) I liked what I saw of him as judge. Other judges weren't so keen, and replaced him as Presiding Judge in the Third Judicial District; but he certainly has the tools and the perspective to excel in his new post – and the four-year contract he wisely negotiated should help. 

Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard, and hats off to all the winning and losing candidates.

                                                        -30-

[The foregoing column appeared this morning, Sunday, 12 November 2017, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website, and a spoken version will air a few times during the week on KRWG (Wednesday and probably Saturday) and KTAL (Thursday).]

[A Sun-News story carried comments on the "small" increase in turnout from eight to 11 per cent of eligible voters.  While that increase may have disappointed Scott Krahling and Delores Connor and others involved in trying to increase voter turnout here, a jump from eight to 11% is actually a 37.5% increase.  In any case, no one should use the voter turnout as an excuse to denigrate the city, the results, or the winners.  A lot of people just don't care.  Many who follow national elections really don't care much who runs the city or the county.  That's their right.  (As a young man here, I didn't have a clue who was on the county or city commission -- until suddenly I was hired as a local reporter for the El Paso Times.)  Everyone who wanted to vote in this election, or run in this election, or speak up for or against candidates had abundant opportunities to do so.   The races came out as they did.  The low turnout means little; and if it means anything at all, it means that the vast silent body of citizens obviously isn't desperately unhappy with the city government's direction.  At the same time, while Gill Sorg's win over Steve Montañez looks like a rout when you say 51% to 41%,  a difference of 121 votes doesn't sound huge, and progressives shouldn't rest on their laurels.]

[i have a couple more random observations:

1. Ceil Levatino will be missed.  As I've said elsewhere, I'd have voted for Yvonne Flores.  And I know Ms. Levatino irritated some constituents.  On the other hand, my interactions with her were always quite pleasant; and a couple of the councilors  who served with her, but generally disagreed with her, both say she was always been courteous and respectful in their conversations, and that they'll miss her.  She deserves credit for that, and for taking her work as councilor seriously.

2. It'll be interesting to watch Monday evening's city council discussion of when the cost-of-living increase in the minimum wage should kick in.  Appears councilors or staff made a mistake in hastily [and wrongfully, under the City Charter] rewriting the ordinance from the original petition-induced version.  A legal purist might be inclined to go back to the CAFe version for guidance.  On the other hand, after an election that removed the council's most conservative councilor, I'd be tempted to vote to delay the increase to show concerned small-business owners some concern.   The issue also reminds one of another important and as-yet-unaddressed issue, changing the charter provisions regarding ordinance petitions and possibly recall provisions.  (Not to eliminate either, but to bring the ordinance provision into line with what was intended and perhaps make the recall provision more like the statewide provision.)  Hope we'll see action on that early in the new year.

3. "Que Tal Community Radio" [KTAL-LP 101.5 FM] now has live streaming.  That's of general interest, because some folks can't get it so well and a few friends and readers are far away.  I should also note that by some accident I'll be on both at 9 a.m. and at 10 a.m. [New Mexico time] this morning, with my regular Sunday Show at 9 [discussing religions and the arguments against them with secular humanist Dr. Richard Hempstead] and at 10 a.m. [getting interviewed by Sandhi Scott on her show.  The Hempstead discussion is interesting.   On Sandhi's show, I'm sure she'll do her usual good job, but she's stuck with a somewhat dull interviewee, so no promises!]

4. Saw Macias's predecessor, Julia Brown, Saturday morning at Senator Martin Heinrich's "Coffee Talk" event at Salud.  Reminds me to note that although she seems to have been too-hastily fired and probably for the wrong reasons, about which we may learn more in a court trial, But Macias seems a solid choice -- though Interim County Manager Chuck McMahon, whom we saw last night at the opening of Four Corners Gallery, gave him tough competition for the "permanent" job. 

Reform Las Cruces's Initiative Process

City officials should include the initiative process among the city charter amendments the Las Cruces City Council will consider shortly.

In 2014, the process of raising the minimum wage satisfied no one. Business leaders complained that proponents were really motivated by the political desire to get the issue on the ballot. Proponents said businessfolks ignored the issue for months, then requested “dialogue” just for delay. Then the council flouted the City Charter. The Charter was not specific on what happened next, and councilors could ignore it with impunity.

We need change.

First, require proponents to present the ordinance to the city council before gathering signatures. Give the council 45 days to act. Let councilors discuss the merits of the ordinance. Let the city attorney provide legal advice regarding the form of the ordinance and conflicts with other laws, to ensure that any resulting ordinance will be effective. Let everyone discuss possible compromise versions.

The proposal would get a full airing, with all parties heard. The community might reach a consensual solution, rather than experience a divisive signature-gathering process and special vote. Proponents might accept a reasonable compromise rather than make huge efforts for a slightly better version of their ordinance.

But compromise would not be required. Proponents would still decide. Absent an agreement within 45 days, proponents could freely gather signatures. Everyone would have more complete knowledge; and voters would understand the issues more clearly. The vetting should make the ordinance that much stronger.

The Charter is clear that, given sufficient signatures, the council must either adopt the requested ordinance or schedule a popular vote. Without change. The voters dictate to the council.

In 2014, some huffy councilors insisted deciding such issues was their prerogative. That obeying the clear meaning of the Charter would be abdicating their duties.

Amend the Charter to state what should be obvious: that an initiative-induced ordinance should last more than a day. A council required to adopt it April 1 can't rescind it April 10, mocking the citizens.

But if councilors must adopt it, how long must they leave it unchanged? The Charter shouldn't require that an ordinance that damages the us must stand forever -- or until another initiative undoes it.

Provide that: (a) during an initial period (six months? nine? 12?) the council couldn't rescind or substantively amend the ordinance except based on changed circumstances (including that the ordinance isn't working or has very negative side-effects); (b) during a second period, (until eighteen months after enactment? A year? Two?) the council could amend or rescind, but opponents of the change could challenge the proposed change, arguing circumstances hadn't changed; then (c) after two years, or perhaps three, the council would be as free to amend or rescind the ordinance as with any other ordinance.

This would respect an ordinance demanded by the people without locking us into a bad result.

During, say, the first nine months the council could only rescind the ordinance only after filing a declaratory relief action in district court stating their intention and allowing opponents to argue that no changed circumstances or disastrous results justified overturning the people's will. From nine to 24 months, the burden would shift: the council could act, but if opponents filed a court action challenging that, the council would suspend the effective date of its action. After two years, the council would have full discretion, as usual.

We have voter initiatives for good reasons. The council proved in 2014 that it will ignore the people's will and render those initiatives pointless. Will the council now accept some check against such abuse of power? 

                                                         -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 18 June 2017, as well as on the newspaper's website the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website -- and KRWG will broadcast a spoken version of it at various times this coming week.]

[The Council meets Monday (19June) at  .m., and will discuss (without public-input, I'm told, because this is a first reading) amendments dealing with the recall process some folks tried to misuse a couple of years ago.  As I was pretty involved in the battle to prevent that misuse, I'm naturally happy to see the council take up improvements to that part of the Charter.  My view is that we should tighten the rules to make abuse more difficult, but not completely abandon the recall provision; but I'll deal with those issues in a later column or blog post.]

Mending the Fence  [copyright 2012 pgoodmanphotos]

 

Minimum Wage Redux

The first stage of the local minimum-wage hike has not created the disaster opponents predicted.

The petition-mandated ordinance called for an initial raise from New Mexico's $7.50 to $8.40, then in two more stages to $10.10. To soften the impact on businesses, the Las Cruces City Council stretched out the process, so that the minimum wage rises again in January 2017, then to $10.10 January 1, 2019. 

Whether that amendment was wise or unwise, it violated the City Charter, which required the council to pass the ordinance unchanged or let all citizens vote on it.

The Council also directed a July 2016 “interim report,” and received it Monday.

City figures tended to show growth in the GRT (independent of rate hikes) and building-permit values. The figures did not purport to be precise, or to separate out different causes and effects. Critics said that there was more growth in El Paso than here (implying that our higher minimum-wage hindered Las Cruces) and that $8.40 is below the $8.50 the business community proposed in a belated compromise effort during the petition/initiative process. Pic Quik owner Oscar Andrade predicted many small businesses will go under next year because of the minimum-wage hike.

The vast majority of those speaking to the council on Monday praised the hike and urged the Council to “stay the course.” The council heard sometimes moving testimony from low-income workers whose lives the wage hike has improved. One anonymous server, whose letter was read by a retired minister, said that since she's now getting a small weekly check to supplement her tip income, she can take her kids to the swimming pool and even buy each an ice cream cone.

I'm no economist. I thought the protestations in 2014 were exaggerated, and I hope they are now; but we shouldn't lose sight of the value local business owners create. Although they often get well rewarded for owning a business, they create jobs and provide some appealing features of local life. (Where would I be without Milagros, Spirit Winds, Toucan, the Mountainview Market Co+op, Coas, Caliches, Mascitelli's, Al's, The Big Picture, Habañeros, La Nueva Casita, Cafe de Mesilla, a host of Farmers' Market vendors, and other local businesses?) Further, when people are collecting donations on behalf of non-profits or causes, many visit local businesses, and some business-owners give generously.

Unfortunately, some local businesses also funded the vicious and misleading campaign to recall city councilors who tried to follow the city charter on minimum-wage. Those businesses deserved to face negative consequences; we are all, myself included, either too forgiving or too lazy for our own good; but then, it is a small community. We can hope some of the recall advocates learned from the defeat of that effort and the (admittedly narrow) success of progressive candidates in the 2016 election. Minimum-wage was a discussion point, and the candidates who were more enthusiastic about raising it tended to prevail.

I hope businesses will back off from supporting reactionary and divisive local candidates. (Another campaign as vicious as the recall effort would deepen the political chasm. Many of us would no longer be able to find a bridge to local businesses that supported such efforts.)

But I also hope those of us with more progressive views won't write off such local businesses prematurely.

For the moment, congratulations to CAFé and the volunteers who gathered signatures, and to the councilors who followed the City Charter. It's hard not to be moved by the expressions of gratitude we heard Monday. 

 

Together, I hope we can keep all the expressed fears from coming true.

                                                           -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 17 July 2016, and will appear presently on the KRWG-TV website.]

Guns and Dialogue

Tuesday's raucous city council meeting highlighted two problems: we need to decrease gun-deaths in the U.S. and that it's hard to have an honest dialogue.

Both sides seem dug in. One woman said that the opposition was “demonizing us gun owners,” and other speakers promptly demonized the “liberals and progressives who want to take our guns away.” Most on both sides seemed sincere. Not many recognized the sincerity of opposing speakers.

Compared to other prominent nations, the U.S. has way more guns and way more gun deaths. The gun-death epidemic ain't cool. But reasonable people can differ on how big a causal factor large numbers of guns are, what corrective actions might decrease the deaths, and how those actions do or do not square with the Second Amendment.

Both sides offered slogans; but there was no chance to go further, to ask probing questions, to allow each side to speak more deeply and meaningfully. Perhaps people of good will might even learn something. 

None of us knows it all. I sure don't. I'm ill-equipped to spot flaws in the various proposals. 

I'd love to see a local task force of people who also don't know everything, but at least know different somethings. If we can take reasonable steps that would decrease gun-deaths, we should. Those need to be both practical/sensible and legal/constitutional. Taking away everyone's guns is not the goal. Aside from whether it would be right or Constitutional, it ain't gonna happen. Prohibition of alcohol and the war on drugs haven't worked. 

It's time to unite the deep concern people have on this issue with the knowledge serious gun owners have.

The city passed a resolution, not an ordinance, urging the State to act to close a loophole in laws requiring background checks, which most of us accept the need for. It has no legal force. If the State acts, the action will not solve the problem. It may help a little.

Tuesday, I was particularly annoyed at the NRA. Sincere and angry people, who fear everyone else wants to take away their guns, delivered and appeared to believe NRA lines that simply aren't true.

One repeated, “Switzerland requires every man to own a gun.” Ain't true. (On my blog, I'll provide links to sources.) Most Swiss men do serve in the army; and the army issues guns, which may be kept at home. In earlier times, fearing a sudden invasion by a larger neighbor, the Swiss required soldiers to be ready to fight their way from home to wherever. But today Switzerland requires gun permits and forbids privately-owned automatic weapons. The “requires everybody” story is false. So is the assumption that what works for a unified little nation such as Switzerland would necessarily work here. Yet there likely are lessons we could learn from the Swiss. 

One local Tea Party leader called consideration of the resolution an illegal ploy to “take away our sacred right” to trade, buy, and sell weapons.

There is no “sacred” right. Jesus never promised unrestricted use of weapons, and never made them “sacred.” There is a constitutional right, the precise nature of which – as with all legal matters – judges and scholars interpret in varied ways.

There's a constitutional right to travel state-to-state, although I damned near have to strip to exercise it. Even freedom of speech gets regulated around the edges. And freedom to pursue happiness doesn't permit you to do drugs that make you happy, or steal your neighbor's TV.

We share this wonderful corner of the Earth, so let's keep talking to each other – and listening.

                                                               -30- 

[The above column appeared this morning in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 9 July, and will presently appear on the newspaper's website (under Opinion: Real Dialogue Needed) and KRWG-TV's website (under News --> Local Viewpoints).]

[A lot happened after I wrote this!  The week included two very publicized shooting of black men by police and the assassination of five Dallas police officers by a black man angry about those shootings. Obviously these were all tragedies.  There is no justification at all of the Dallas murders; the police shootings strongly appear unjustified, pending further investigation.  The obvious fear is that both police and young black men will fear and distrust each other even more deeply -- with some good reasons and some bad on both sides -- and act unwisely.   The obvious need is for enhanced communication and understanding.  Police need even more training, and better understanding of young black men and black ways; and communities need to recognize that police have a tough and dangerous job requiring split-second decisions without full information.  How do we make that happen?]

[One thing left unclear after the City Council meeting was this: Greg Smith and Ceil Levatino sought to delay the vote so that there could be fuller community discussion, and Mayor Miyagashima and the other councilors also seemed to favor further discussion.  My perhaps mistaken impression was that although they had voted on the resolution, they'd also called for further discussion at a work session.  Although Greg Smith's reference to a possible "consensus" is so optimistic as to be nonsensical, I think we all believe that progress locally can only come from further and more meaningful dialogue.  Even if no further "rules" result, which is most likely, the meeting described in the column proves how much gun owners and gun control advocates, generally, need to understand each other better.  That doesn't have to be through a city work session, and there are likely better venues (perhaps including a Great Conversation); but it needs to happen.]

[The column mentions the gun industry's misleading attempt to justify lax gun control by arguing that Switzerland "requires all men to own guns" and has a very low homicide rate.  This site asks whether the gun industry's comments about Switzerland are fact or myth, noting that in fact Swiss gun regulations are pretty strict.  This is Wikipedia's article on the Swiss and guns , which is fairly detailed.   There's also this Time Magazine piece on the Swiss gun culture.  The fact that the gun industry misstates the facts about Switzerland doesn't mean that we might not learn from the Swiss example.  Unfortunately, it wouldn't be easy to transport Swiss rules and norms from a small, homogenous, European nation with a culture of "community before individual" to a sprawling, heterogenous nation that emphasizes Individualism above all. 

Another misleading use of Switzerland that we see after nearly every shooting tragedy is the  comparison of Switzerland and Honduras which notes that each has about 8.2 million people, but the Swiss, with more guns, have fewer gun deaths -- ignoring that one is a wealthy European country surrounded by peaceful neighbors while the other is on a drug-running route.  The comparison claims the Swiss require gun ownership while the Hondurans ban guns, yet Honduras has the world's highest homicide rate and Switzerland the lowest.]

A Weed's View of the "Positivity Garden"

Greg Smith's recent commentary on “Tending a garden of positives: weeding out all the negatives” reminded me of three things.

One was a sign I bought a friend when we were working on a trial: “It doesn't matter how fast you drive if you don't know where you're going.”

Another was the historical incident at the start of the book Longitude.

Before we had a reliable way to determine longitude, navigation at sea was a challenge. Because a difference of opinion could lead to mutiny, the Brits made it illegal for anyone but the Captain and the Navigator even to attempt to keep track of the ship's position.

On one occasion, when the Navigator said to turn north, a sailor spoke up. He said they were well east of where the Navigator thought they were, and that if they turned North immediately they would soon run aground.

He must have believed what he said, since he knew that the penalty for keeping his own calculations was hanging, which sentence was carried out before sunset. The ship had already turned north. Early that morning it ran smack into the islands the sailor had mentioned. Almost all hands were lost, but the Captain survived long enough to crawl up onto the beach and lie there until a woman scavenging in the wreckage spotted his expensive watch and killed him.

Regrettably, Greg takes folks to task for disagreeing with him about Spaceport America and a plaza in Downtown Las Cruces. He defines the opposition as “negativity.” He implies that it's negativity for the sake of negativity, referring to “the negativity campaign” and “their overbearing negativity.” He more than implies we should simply ignore the naysayers, writing, “To ignore them is to deny them the inroads they desperately seek to establish” and that ignoring them can “contribute to the quality of life enjoyed here.”

For the record, I don't yet know enough to take a firm position on either. Regarding Spaceport America, I'm a bit of a skeptic. I thought Bob Hearn – whom I don't think of as particularly negative – raised some serious issues. When we discussed them on radio, I thought the gentleman rebutting him exuded complete confidence and provided some good answers. I'd have been interested in further discussion to hear Bob's rebuttals to those answers.

On the plaza, I'd very much like to see one, though since I'm not a city councilor I haven't weighed the costs against other municipal expenses. I think that if done right (a significant “if”) it would provide value to the community more than the financial calculations alone might suggest. It's something I think we should do, unless the costs are absurd; but I worry we'd make it too glitzy, too plastic, too perfect, too something. It can't be a plaza full of history; but neither should it feel false.

My real concern with Greg's commentary goes to the abstract concept: that negativity (defined as disagreeing with the mayor pro tem?) is inherently valueless or counter-productive. (I like and respect Greg, and doubt he meant to sound as if he wanted to squelch dissent.)

Marine navigation aside, naysayers can raise important questions we sometimes lose sight of in our haste to reach whatever we think the goal is.

Granted, some people will find the negative in anything. Granted, there will always be some citizens who define a successful city counsel meeting as one in which they got to take some real good shots at someone in power. Granted, some people will take even the most absurd position if their particular political party espouses it. (But it probably lacks grace for the mayor pro tem to say these things.)

But Bob Hearn is not that sort of citizen, and his questions about Spaceport America (which he said were designed to get people thinking about the matter, not to state a conclusion they should reach) were non-frivolous. Recent resignations by the some of the key players in Virgin Galactic may also be meaningful – or may not.

We have spent plenty of taxpayers' money on a bold gamble. I hope it pays off. But it remains a gamble so far. For citizens to question it seems pretty reasonable to me.

The argument that “Well, we're doing it, so all these questions just gum up the works” could be a good one in certain circumstances. More often it actually betrays the uncertainty of the persons speaking so confidently. If public questions or criticisms can harm the Spaceport America effort, then that effort is probably doomed anyway.

Maybe I hear Greg's words with the jaundiced ears of a columnist. Too often people make me aware of serious problems, though their jobs could be at risk if anyone knew we'd talked. Authorities tell me that everything's fine and criticisms just make people nervous. Then I dig deeper and find the problems are real.

Finally, the third thing Greg's “garden” analogy reminded me of was the well-known saying among gardeners that there are no weeds, just plants that happen to be growing where we don't want them.

                                                                    -30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, under the perhaps unfortunate title "Is City Driving Fast toward an Unknown Destination."  Although the headline is a snappy and clever reference to an anecdote in the column, which is good, it may give the impression that I was criticizing a bunch of recent decisions by the City Council.  I wasn't.  I was gently poking fun at a column by the Mayor Pro Tem that I felt was a little heavy-handed.   For the most part, I think the current city councilors, including Greg Smith, are fine people doing a fine job.
My point was and is that dissenting views and criticism have a legitimate, even an important place in democratic government.  Yeah, it's unfortunate that some folks criticize merely to criticize, or merely to hear themselves talk.  Sure, that can be frustrating to folks trying to run a city or a county.  But doesn't it kind of come with the territory?  Isn't that particularly so when the subjects are well-intentioned expenditures of large amounts of our money toward interesting goals one could reasonably doubt we'll ever reach?]