For years, Whitewater has seen construction project after construction project: a new high school, remodeled buildings, a Bridge to Nowhere, a roundabout, an Innovation Center, a Starin Road extension, an East Gate project, etc.
And yet, and yet…it’s what’s inside that truly matters.
While many a formerly-fine church has come to ruin for its neglected teachings, still house churches of true devotion emerge across the planet.
Old Whitewater – a state of mind, not a person or chronological age – loves nothing so much as a big project & a big show.
For it all, shovels, construction helmets, ceremonies, contractors, architects, politicians, and photo opportunities will instruct not one student for even one day.
Update 2: See in the comments section below insightful comments from George Bailey and J, and my reply.
The East Gate, Innovation Center, Road to Nowhere and Roundabout- are all colossal wastes and an insult. That wasted money would have been very useful/ welcome to go into WUSD schools- more teachers-smaller classrooms-more academic offerings/opportunities. However, I disagree with the implied notion (maybe unintentionally?) that renovating WUSD schools falls in the same category as the wasteful, dubious projects above. True enough- it is the activities within the school walls that is the paramount priority, but I feel that facilities upgrades are necessary every 20-25 years- shiny shovels, flowery speeches and business suits in hard hats can be shelved though.
Good morning. Thanks much for your comments. Your point is well taken: there is a difference in the projects you mention and school construction (especially for safety upgrades). My post was meant to be a criticism of how projects are presented, in a similar and (to my mind) superficial way. The irony is not lost on me: my point about critiquing communications was awkwardly and imprecisely communicated.
The point I should have made is that a more discriminating and discerning outlook would note clear differences in value. For the Banner or DU, every project is touted in the same style, and I’d guess that’s a matter of those publishers’ shared outlook.
From their point of view, criticism of local policy in any form probably seems like something that’s holding the town back; from my point of view, a superficial and similar presentation of every program looks like a broken signaling or price system, where every message is the same no matter what the underlying circumstances or value. Broken signaling makes misallocation more likely for lack of prioritization. I’m not a conservative, but there are sharp conservatives in this town who could present events more discerningly than these conservative publications do.
(For Central Office, these are bright people who likely find it’s easier, in this environment, to settle for a lowest-common-denominator approach.)
It’s also true, as you write, that we can push through these presentations; I think we’ll reach a time when we don’t have to do so, to the betterment of our public policy.
My very best,
Adams.
I believe two points are relevant. First, I’m with George on the merits. The new buildings and such are worth the cost.That’s the heart of the matter. Otherwise you throw out the baby with (a lot) of bath water. Second, however, is how I laughed when I saw your post. My first thought was, “tell us what you really think about boosterism, John”.The post isn’t clear about spending because it’s preoccupied with that critique.This theme runs through so much of what you write.In fact your analogy about empty churches and private worship is stark. It portrays boosterism like a weak (or false) faith. You say it distorts signals “where every message is the same no matter what the underlying circumstances or value”.The test for you and the rest of us to present a concrete alternative that keeps them from too much “misallocation”. That’s hard but it is where you are on solid ground with many opportunities.
Thank you for your comments. Let me think on what you’ve said. Concrete (in the way of a reference guide, a bibliography, perhaps) would be demanding but well worth the effort (as good things are).