Understand today’s No to get Yes tomorrow
BY JAY CRONLEY World Staff Writer
Friday, October 12, 2007
The plan to fix the river
is out at the recycling
station and will return
as who knows what, maybe
parade confetti in another
city.
That aside, it is still a
mistake to group all No
voters as civic saboteurs who
spend 19 hours a day
watching television and
encouraging weeds to grow
past the window line.
It is a mistake because at
some point in the future, the
city will once more ask those
voting No this time to vote
Yes for something similar.
You can’t insinuate that
somebody is a cur hound
with no style one day and
then ask for a helping hand
not long thereafter.
Moreover, many of those
who considered a No vote
before voting Yes probably
don’t want to be thought of
as near no-accounts.
The growly minority: My
guess is that there were a
number of reasons why
people voted No.
Unless somebody takes
the time to find out why
these No votes came about,
mistakes will be repeated,
parts of the city and county
will seem to be separated by
more than a few blocks, and
they’ll continue to seem to
experience different levels of
citizenship.
Lots of No votes
undoubtedly came from
career No voters.
Vote a tiny surcharge to
bring to town great
businesses employing
thousands?
No.
Vote a quarter a month to
improve schools?
No.
Vote to pay a dime a week
to help tear down unsightly
buildings and create parks?
No.
Vote for free beer?
Well . . . No.
But in any well-intended
vote, it’s doubtful that
full-time sourpusses carry
enough negativity to doom
an issue all by their growly
selves.
The rest of the majority:
Some people might have
voted No because of
environmental issues; some
might actually think natural
beats commercial.
Some might have voted No
because they think river
development is a job for the
private sector.
Some might have voted No
because they weren’t
convinced that the dams
would work.
Some might have voted No
because the sewer and
refineries framed the project.
Many, many probably
voted No because they were
selfish in the suburbs.
Some might have voted No
because they don’t enjoy
being told what’s good for
them.
Some might have voted No
because they want to take
civic matters one step at a
time, downtown first.
Some might have voted No
because they have things
other than river enrichment
to worry about, like:
Crime.
Bad schools.
Isolation.
Some might have voted No
because it’s the only voice
they’ve had in recent
memory.
Jay Cronley 581-8362
jay.cronley@tulsaworld.com
Associated Images:
|
