At Special Town Meeting last year, I opened my comments by saying that I recognized the need to spend money to address genuine needs that PRD and COA/HS face. I said that I was willing to pay taxes to address the needs. I also said that I was against spending more to address aspirations that were wants and not needs.
I have attended every CCBC meeting except one from mid January through mid August and have made clear to that committee in public comments that I am not advocating for "do nothing." I have been making comments and suggestions to the committee to try to ensure that a low-cost option which addresses essential needs and leaves out unnecessary aspirations is developed as a choice that is presented to the voters. In the world in which I live, careful objective analysis, which often involves numbers, is a way to understand what are the core needs. If such a reasonable low cost option is offered, I will vote for it. Dennis Picker, Page Rd On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 6:34 PM Lis Herbert <lisherb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don’t believe for a second that numbers don’t matter — far from it. > > But I have no doubt that there is a vocal minority of people who seem to > believe that by throwing numbers around — only the numbers they have seized > upon as important — they give the impression that they must know what they > are talking about, and should be taken seriously. > > The reality is that they won’t accept any level of public spending, even > well-justified public spending for the greater good. And unfortunately, a > not insignificant group of people seem to be buying into the argument > because, I guess, “numbers”. There is a thin veil of credibility implied in > what they are saying, and some people seem to be lapping it up — whether > because they believe it, or they themselves want to punt this forever, too, > and the charts and numbers make them feel like they are making a reasoned > decision. > > Numbers do matter. And to that point: the number crunchers say it’s okay, > and I believe them. > > Lis > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 27, 2023, at 6:08 PM, Edward Young <nedyoun...@icloud.com> wrote: > > > The idea that someone would advocate that the residents of Lincoln should > pay millions of dollars of their money to a construction project on the > basis of vague aspirations about “values and beliefs", without a close look > at the relevant facts -- including the relevant numbers -- is so mind > boggling that words fail me. > > > Message: 24 > Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 19:04:53 -0400 > From: Lis Herbert <lisherb...@gmail.com> > To: Lynne Smith <ly...@smith.net> > Cc: Dennis Picker <dennis.pick...@gmail.com>, Lincoln > <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> > Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center- size considerations > Message-ID: > <CA+LeGX1Oe7XTQxNKfa6L_f1e-64iB5r30=jub8eaxvmmqa8...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I'm sorry, but the hair-splitting -- 13,000 vs. 11,400 sq. ft. -- so clouds > the discussion that it becomes meaningless, especially when there is a > suggestion to make up that 1,600 sq. ft. with other spaces in town. Aren't > there administrative costs -- time and staffing -- associated with that way > of thinking? What is gained by slimming things down by less than 10%? > > I've read through these threads, and the numbers -- oh my god the numbers. > When I listened to a podcast this week from the London Review of Books > related to this piece (which I urge you to read) > <https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n18/john-lanchester/get-a-rabbit> all > I could think of was the Community Center, and the discussions that go > round and round about the usage, the square footage, the justification (or > not) for those numbers, the need to survey further, the need to start > again, etc. To quote Mr. Lanchester: > > Discussions that were once about values and beliefs ? about what a society > wants to see when it looks at itself in the mirror ? have increasingly > turned to arguments about numbers, data, statistics. > > > And: > > As the House of Commons Treasury Committee said dryly in a 2016 report on > the economic debate about EU membership, *?many of these claims sound > factual because they use numbers.?* > > > The idea that numbers convey credibility is nonsense. We are meant to > believe that some people possess some level of numeracy that the rest of us > can't, and that only they pay keen attention to stats and figures. And yet > these same people really just don't want to see anything built, at all: > some of them voted against the trimmed down, tiered budgets at the vote > last winter, after loudly proclaiming by email (spewing numbers everywhere) > that what we need are trimmed down, tiered budgets to choose from. This is > not arguing in good faith, this is muddying the waters so people feel like > they can't agree to anything. > > Outside Donelan's last weekend I heard a woman tell CCBC volunteers "I only > know we're going to be screwed". Really? How can anybody feel good about > convincing people (or trying to convince people) of things that simply > aren't true? And should a decades-long initiative be scuttled because the > numbers are off a little bit, because a few years have gone by and things > have changed, or population has shifted, or or or?? What happens when you > survey people again, and the slow churn of committees and bureaucracy means > that new number is outdated? (Hint: that's the point of the exercise.) > > And has anybody bothered to ask how many people don't take advantage of > these programs -- all of them -- because the facilities aren't up to par, > accessible, pleasant, etc.? That is a number worth talking about. > > Lis > > > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
