Citizens Oak Ridge

Letters to the Editor

Familiar methods used to 'sell' Crestpointe

3/9/2007

To the Editor:

The initial rollout announcement of the Crestpointe/Target development ignited a backlash of opposition, resulting in the current petition drive to put the proposed city funding of Crestpointe to a referendum vote. So naturally the powers that be have kicked their Crestpointe/Target campaign into high gear, using the same methods as they have done so successfully in the past for other big city-funded projects.

First, we are again hearing all the same old slogans: "Grow or Die," "Act Now — Offer Expires Soon," and "Gotta Pay To Play.” If there's one thing we Oak Ridgers ought to have learned by now, it's that another bus is always coming, so many more of us are now resistant to these than in the past.

Second, city officials and the developers are giving special briefings to all sorts of groups. One could understand why they would do this for the Anderson County Commission, but why the school board, since this is not per se an education issue? Well, they have noticed that the community is very supportive of the schools, so if they can posit this as an issue critical to school funding — i.e., getting those tax revenues from the development — then they can get the school people and the parents on board. But this will not be as easy a sell as, say, the expensive new high school they persuaded the citizens to fund several years ago. Education is a religion in Oak Ridge, but shopping is still just shopping.

Third, they persuaded The Oak Ridger to interview a longtime Oak Ridge couple who are all for Crestpointe (written up by no less than the editor of The Oak Ridger). This tactic featured prominently in the school campaign: the more people that were interviewed, the bigger the community support seemed to be. Sort of like a Potemkin village. But this time around the issue is less one of sentiment than it was for the high school, so featuring a likable older couple may not change anyone's mind.

Fourth, we see the injection of small bits of information not otherwise emphasized in the news reports, with the implication that they are practically givens. For example, in the interview with the longtime Oak Ridger pair, one says that the developers have been studying Oak Ridge "since 2004" and that Crestpointe was not a hastily prepared proposal; her mate is "excited about a 13 percent return on investment" from Crestpointe. The implication is that the developers know what they are doing and would not invest in anything that wouldn't be profitable. But other Oak Ridgers are not so starry-eyed about these developer talking points: they know that even if the developers make out like bandits, Oak Ridge may not.

But there is one technique that seems to be new. The Oak Ridger has editorialized in the past in favor of various city fundfests, but the publisher of The Oak Ridger outdid himself in his Feb. 27 editorial. He quotes someone whom he identifies as being good at numbers and working in a bank — but not as working, e.g., in risk analysis or business finance, and not as living in Oak Ridge or working in an Oak Ridge bank. This person blesses the city's funding of Crestpointe, saying airily that government funds all sorts of things and "we wouldn't think twice about funding … a school.” He warns direly that "time is running out for Oak Ridge," "Oak Ridge's number could be up," and "property owners who sign a petition are signing a guaranteed tax increase." But he gives us no figures to bear this out except for a sales tax decrease projection. The clincher is Mr. Numbers Guy's condescending statement that Oak Ridgers opposing the use of city funding for Crestpointe are "unfamiliar with traffic," or "don't want too much retail," or "don't get out of town much." The publisher of The Oak Ridger clearly does not realize how alienating such arrogance can be, and how The Oak Ridger could be caught in the fallout for having featured these statements so approvingly.

Wasn't it Santayana who said that those who would not learn from history would be condemned to repeat it? The people who are signing the referendum petition realize that.

Janet L. Westbrook

Oak Ridge

http://www.oakridger.com/stories/030907/opi_154961701.shtml