L. Necio - 09:11pm Mar 16, 2001 Central (#102 of 103)
Negative? How about realistic?

It is apparent that proponents simply cannot answer the very real and pertinent questions potential bill-payers are asking. And each time they can't (or won't), they cry fowl, reclaim their ball and slink away, whimpering about how horribly they are misunderstood.

But this is about millions of tax dollars going into a small and select collection of well-connected pockets, and about the beneficiaries' refusal to provide real answers to realistic concerns.

Why won't they answer questions?

The truth, after all, is always an absolute defense. If the truth is on their side, it seems that they would be eager to answer questions.

And who are we kidding about the great responses received by bothersome Packery telemarketers, much as those overwhelming responses reported before voters turned down this boondoggle overwhelmingly when it was presented as a bond issue?

Let's remember that people who telemarketers "interview" are those who don't hang up. And those who stay on the line are fed a series of questions cleverly (and expensively) structured to lead them to a desired conclusion.

You can get favorable responses for doubling taxes, for example, by simply asking: "Which would you prefer: To contribute twice as much for great streets and wonderful public services -- or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?"

But from all reports, what developers are conducting is a push poll, which isn't a sounding of opinion but a campaign to "push" a point of view. Legitimate, scientific polls call as few 400 to -- at most -- 1,000 respondents to get a statistically valid sample, and they finish it up within 72 hours or less.

Is this the case with the Packery Phone Pushers? Or have they been calling all regular voters for weeks?

The Army Corps of Engineers has indicated a great deal by simply choosing to conduct a new assessment of this proposal: They are not comfortable with initial studies.

But don't be surprised if -- after this TIF gets voter approval -- the ACE aces report that the project will cost considerably more than $30 million to build and substantially more to maintain.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------