This website is accessible to all versions of every browser. However, you are seeing this message because your browser does not support basic Web standards, and does not properly display the site's design details. Please consider upgrading to a more modern browser. (Learn More).

You are here: home > opinion > in my opinion

The gaffs of Pittsboro Matters fall to name calling

By Tom Glendinning
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2014

e-mail E-mail this page   print Printer-friendly page

Pittsboro, NC - I think we should issue Parking tickets for those who rehash the same arguments. But in the words of our iconic folk hero, Pete Seegar, "This Land Is Your Land." Some take that to mean their land and no one else's. But I am sure that Mr. Seegar's meaning was more universal than that. He was a fine man and a true democrat.

The gaffs of Pittsboro Matters fall to name calling, with the caveat "and I mean that in only the best way, of course." Arguments based on facts and past experience cannot compete with such slanderous tactics. For those addicted to blindly buying buzzwords and pablum, no sound arguments can penetrate. The colostrum of fear is the only nourishment they digest. And their response of control over any change has zero tolerance.

I wish to see the document defining exactly what is meant by "environmentally, economically and socially sustainable." Then, I could make up my own mind about the terms of the contract. Unfortunately, the definition is held by the few who would determine how the rest of us should live. We experienced this elitist culture of judgement and criticism when "politically correct" was the standard. We were brow beaten into submission by critics who apparently knew the rules, but were not so democratic that they would share them.

In the last Pittsboro Matters post, an "expert planning consultant team" is promised to arrive to cast the final word of judgement. It will likely be for the prosecution, not the community as a whole. I thought that Preston group had expert planners, engineers, designers, and consultants. But, of course, they don't count and are untrustworthy because they are being paid by "big money."

The group of critics is paving their way of no solution with bricks of fear in order to gain support to stop the development or take over complete control of it. I repeat the definition of FEAR, false evidence appearing real. Where is faith in their argument? Why can they not accept that there are other people with good judgement, worthy of trust, capable beyond their resources and willing to do excellent work for the benefit of the community? In order to have a meeting of minds, both parties must develop a level of trust in the other, not undermine all facets of the other's character.

This "new guard," the protectorate of all that is holy and divine, has had political control for most for the last decade, 2001-2010. They did not want more business or industry. They ran the EDC with no appreciable gains in employment, new businesses, or expanded searches for employers. They did not want new development. Yet they ran up government spending by over 70%. So where is the overall benefit for yielding to their demands for a sustainable community? The results of their efforts appear to be unsustainable, unless we all have the means to pay more taxes without the jobs to justify them.. I know to trust the "old guard" at a tomb in Arlington. They have earned my respect through honor and devotion to duty.

So which argument do you believe? One that elicits fear of the unknown with images of death and destruction of all you hold dear? Or one that has confidence in your own ability to make decisions, to review facts based on unbiased sources, to see what has happened in your own community as good, prosperous and meaningful?

I am observing a civil case now before a court in another state. One party has 90 witnesses and 24 boxes of evidence. The other has a handful of witnesses and one box of evidence. The first party has used tactics of delay and filings to discourage the other party, has used personal connections to favor the case, and has increased the cost of the trial. Why would someone use all these devices if the truth was held in a simple piece of evidence and a truthful testimony? This debate seems to mirror that case. I can only have faith that the right party wins and that righteousness is rewarded, not the tempest of deception.

e-mail E-mail this page
print Printer-friendly page
The gaffs of Pittsboro Matters fall to name calling