< PREVIOUS ] [ 2000 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Students of propaganda techniques ought to devote some
attention to the campaign against Amendment 24, a proposed
amendment to the state constitution which would require
local governments to designate growth areas,
and to
conduct elections for developments outside those areas.
For instance, the anti-24 messages will decry 2,200
words of fine print.
Since most Americans despise fine
print and associate it with things like insurance policies
that won't pay for things you thought they'd pay for and
warranties that don't cover things you thought you were
guaranteed, this is a classic example of the guilt by
association
technique.
We can presume that if Amendment 24 were printed in
144-point type, or plastered on billboards with immense
letters, the Coloradans for Responsible Reform
would
still be opposed to it. After all, they're not running ads
that say Yesterday's New York Stock Exchange
Transactions -- four broadsheet pages of fine print,
or
Baseball box scores: acres of fine print that threaten
the American way of life.
Another propaganda technique lies in the name of the anti-24 organization, Coloradans for Responsible Reform. This implies that there are some responsible reforms for the sprawl growth that concerns so many Coloradans, and that these reforms will come about if Amendment 24 is defeated.
But if there are indeed some responsible reforms, where are they? Just what reforms can we anticipate from the Colorado Association of Realtors, the Colorado Association of Homebuilders, the Associated General Contractors of Colorado, the Land Title Association of Colorado and the dozens of other supporting organizations listed by Coloradans for Responsible Reform on its website, www.voteno24.com?
If there are any, I haven't seen them, and it only seems
fair that if they're going to say they're for
responsible reform,
they should tell us what reforms
they would support.
Then there's one of the reasons given to oppose 24:
This amendment is a risky scheme drafted by a handful of
extremists with almost no public input. It will force you
to the polls every November armed with complicated growth
maps and mountains of detailed planning data to vote on
potentially hundreds of local planning decisions. This
untested approach could push our Colorado economy into
chaos.
As the plaintiffs' attorney once reminded me during a
deposition in a libel suit, the word scheme
is
loaded with unpleasant connotations.
As for drafted by a handful of extremists,
how
many people draft a normal law in Colorado? One or two
legislators, perhaps a committee, right? Certainly no more
than a handful.
If it really upsets the Anti-24
crowd that laws are drafted by a handful
of people,
why aren't they picketing every session of the General
Assembly?
And of course, describing your opponents as
extremists
is a propaganda technique, although, if
the polls are correct that a majority supports Amendment
24, that would be more like the mainstream
position,
rather than the extremist
side.
What about the horrors of pushing our Colorado
economy into chaos?
Will banks and ATMs quit
functioning if Amendment 24 passes? Will railroads, trucks
and airlines cease operations? Just what are they talking
about here?
Further exploration of the Anti-24 publicity reveals far too many examples of exaggeration, name-calling and unsupported assertions to detail here.
And my problem is that I checked the site because my impulse is to oppose Amendment 24 because I don't see how it will do what it's supposed to do.
In essence, the idea is to limit sprawl growth by forcing developers to get approval, at a public election, for projects outside designated growth areas.
Given that it's possible to purchase most elections in this country, a big-money developer will still be able subdivide anywhere he wants to. He'll just have the added cost of advertising to get the electorate to support his project, and for all I know, that might be cheaper than going through the current planning and zoning process.
As the Roman orator and philosopher Cicero observed more
than two millennia ago, There is no fortress so strong
that money cannot take it.
I suspect that also applies
to any growth-control amendment in Colorado, too.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2000 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >