Large and small, important issues will be decided on all levels November 7. Here in Huntington Beach, California, we have a
measure on the November ballot to determine whether 5 acres of parkland should be set aside for a new senior center. It is being pitched as a measure that supports our local senior citizen community. Indeed it has a lot to offer seniors. Fundamentally, though, it is a land use issue.
By shifting the debate from land use to supporting the aging, supporters are drowning out legitimate arguments that opponents are making. Check out
some of the arguments those in favor are making:
In Central Park, we currently devote 25 acres to horses, 15 acres to Frisbee Golf, and 2 acres to dogs. Devoting 5 acres to Seniors is not unreasonable.
It appears as if the opponents of the preferred site have declared war on the Huntington Beach Council on Aging and their many supporters young and old.
It is likely that although potential private funding has been identified, no new Senior Center will ever be built in Huntington Beach unless it is built on the preferred site.
None of these arguments acknowledge that you don't have to be against seniors to be for the preservation of a limited supply of open space. And horse trails and dog parks hardly have the permanent impact of a 47,000 square foot structure. It's enough to make one wonder if there's more to the story. The money they wish to use for the senior center consists of funds expected from a developer as park in-lieu fees.
Why should I be surprised? This stuff has been happening in politics for years. For example, it's a lot easier and possibly more effective to throw up a 30-second commercial playing to people's fears than to engage in a complex discussion on why foreign policy decisions we make today can have an impact for dozens of years to come.
Personally, I'm for a new senior center. I just don't think it should be built in Central Park - and I don't think the vast majority of park in-lieu fees intended for many parks in need should be dedicated solely to this project. But proponents leave no provision for people like me - you're either "supporting the seniors", or you're a "hypocrite". Actually, I'm willing to pay more tax to support a new senior center in a different location. But the proponents argue their approach is "free" for the taxpayers. I'm willing to pay for what I support - so how's that hypocritical?
I'm not naive enough to believe this is a new thing. But am I alone in sensing a different tone creeping into these local issues - the politics of division at work? A strategy that's worked well for Republicans on the national level has trickled down to all levels. Neighbors don't work to take the necessary time and debate to decide an issue in the interests of the overall community. You become a "senior center lover" or a "senior center hater". No room in between. A complicated matter is put to a simplified vote; if it wins, the proponents claim a mandate, and their whole project is pushed through. Sound familiar?
We need to get beyond the name-calling and toward a discussion of real issues. But if this local example is any indication, we're a long way from that goal.