NIMBY

[Nick Gorton]

I think re-reading the editorial is a pretty good suggestion. From the tone
and statements in that, it can pretty much be summed up that the WHHNA (or
at least Ned Kennington) really doesn't give a rats ass if the school is
able to provide the best for its several hundred students if that comes at
the expense of an occasional annoyance for about a dozen or so homeowners.

The fact that the man is perseverating about tennis courts being lit until
2145 speaks loudly to that sentiment. I can certainly understand feeling
slighted that you were not kept well informed that the school changed the
policy to have the courts available to students 45 minutes later... but
calling the school immoral, dishonorable, and unscrupulous because they
didn't send you a memo? Just that histrionic tone of his editorial and the
fact that he's worried about NCSSM's 'moral values' (red flag! red flag! red
flag!) screams: malignantly entitled nutjob to me.

And that's precisely the reason that I suspect the school is not really keen
on engaging them. If you have a neighborhood association that is reasonable
when you want to have lighting for a tennis court, you might be more willing
to negotiate something more contentious like what is proposed. However, if
people are unreasonable about smaller issues, it can fairly well be assured
that they are going to be even less reasonable about bigger ones. Given
that, its not surprising that the administration might not actively seek out
their participation and might try to circumvent the WHHNA altogether.

With regard to Boarman in particular, I think his actions should be taken in
context. In the article to which you linked, when the error (about the
zoning rules changing) was brought to his attention, Boarman admitted it was
a mistake. The article then says he: "brought up worries about a rezoning
after contentious discussions with neighborhood representatives who led him
to believe designation under the university district would limit what could
be built." So if you believe the article: the WHHNA misleads him to think
that the zoning rules would change, he cites this as a reason to urgently
address this, then the WHHNA derides him for using the information they
misled him about as a means of fundraising.

So Boarman's mistake in this incident was that he didn't question the
veracity of the WHHNA? Or that he made a factual error (which he admitted
was a mistake)?

Now, I certainly do not claim that I know this guy or even that he is to be
trusted. However, the information in Kennington's letter and the N&O article
do not seem to indicate that his actions in this regard are reasonably
inappropriate. Furthermore, its not like he's the CEO of Enron who's only
out to make a buck. Michael Bacon said this was about: "Boarman being
dishonest and misleading to all parties in order to get what he wants."
However, 'what he wants' is to build an athletic stadium for a high school,
and while the ends don't always justify the means, they sometimes do.

Last week I saw an actively psychotic and violent person (who was *huge*) in
the ER. He refused all oral medicines that we wanted to give him, so we had
to use an injection (which he also refused.) So instead of getting half a
dozen cops to hold him down, I lied and told him that I was giving him a
tetanus shot (since he'd gotten injured earlier.) He accepted this and let
me inject a nice slug of haldol. Was this dishonest and misleading? Sure.
Was it the right thing to do? Also sure. So have a look at Boarman's actions
in this light. 'What he wants' is to build a high school athletic stadium,
not to swindle elderly women out of their life savings.

Nick


--
R. Nick Gorton, MD
Diplomate, American Board of Emergency Medicine
808 F Street #311
Davis, CA 95616
(504) 261-8379

The plural of anecdote is 'not data.' - Roger Brinner.

Few arguments are more dangerous than those that "feel" right but can't be
justified. -Stephen Jay Gould

<<< CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >>>
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential, and intended
only for the named recipient(s) above. If it has been sent to you in error,
please notify the sender by replying to this email and delete this message
immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/alumni/attachments/20060319/1b8d9267/attachment.html