Nathan Harter
Greensburg Daily News
Greensburg —
What became clear Monday night at the regular meeting of the City Council on the question about whether to expand the local airport are three things. First, people are working with contradictory facts. Second, some of the people arguing with each other are motivated by competing ambitions. Third, the two basic groups contesting the issue begin with very different visions for the future of the city.
Seemingly contradictory facts can be investigated and resolved. The council did well this week to take steps to get the same facts, so everybody can agree on the nature of the problem. That way, we get past the Ò"he said"/"she said" stage of debate. Get the facts.
Competing ambitions are harder to resolve, because, in politics as in life, competition is just part of the process. Those in power hope to remain in power. Those who seek power must topple the ones who have it. And there are a few folks who relish the power game for its own sake, as a kind of hobby. The airport controversy is simply an excuse to witness the clash of personalities and the criss-crossing trajectories of political careers.
What needs further examination by ordinary constituents are the different visions for the city of Greensburg. One vision for the city seems to be vague because nobody will say it out loud. It is hard for me to know whether anyone honestly holds this view. The other seems to be speculative, because nobody knows the future. What are these two visions?
The "vague" vision is the one that means that Greensburg never changes. We never prosper or grow but remain just like we always were. This vision might be known as the reactionary vision. People with this vision would have resisted the Honda plant, for example, if they could, and they certainly seem to believe that landowners possess every acre in perpetuity, whether they bought it or inherited it or live on land owned by a trust.
The speculative vision is the one that means that Greensburg tries to become something new, something bigger, even though nobody knows exactly what the future holds. We could be hoping for something that never comes about, building an airport that never does really catch on. This vision positions the city to become a regional force, although it requires taking risks and upsetting the status quo.
I could be misinterpreting what was being said Monday night, which is why other people might want to clarify their visions for the rest of us. It was interesting at the City Council meeting, however, that regardless of anyone's specific vision for the city many of the council members shared the same basic principles - resisting eminent domain, trying to keep the tax burden low, and giving constituents a voice.
On these three principles, there was considerable agreement. Eminent domain is a legitimate power of last resort. Keeping the tax burden low helps everybody. And constituents should participate in deliberations, in one form or another. It is on this last principle that I would like to conclude, because I drove home a little puzzled.
For one thing, we really should decide just how much of a voice we give to people who are not directly impacted by the decision whether to expand the airport and who are not residents of the city. Should the city be influenced by their vision for us?
It might be wise to ask ourselves who gets to participate in shaping our vision, because the airport controversy includes a number of people who do not even live in the city, pay no city taxes, or do not vote in city elections. Does their vision count? What do you think?
For another thing, I am curious about who really speaks for the silent majority, the overwhelming number of folks who don't participate in online forums and don't wear t-shirts taking sides on this question. How does anyone know what they think?
I was gone from Indiana for four months and missed a lot of the fireworks. Now I'm back. But then I have a weekly column to say what I think. What about the rest of you?
