Dear HCN,
The “Analysis” by Tony
Davis regarding the failure of Arizona’s anti-growth Proposition
202 in the last election misses an important part of the situation
in southern Arizona and, I suspect, elsewhere as well (HCN,
11/20/00: In Arizona’s growth fight, advertising defined
reality).
Davis attributes the failure to an
advertising blitz by the pro-growth lobby, and states that
“advertising defined reality.” This may make environmentalists feel
good about their noble cause, which was thwarted by the evil forces
of rampant capitalism. However, I don’t watch TV and I never saw
any of the advertisements mentioned, and I still voted against
Proposition 202. Why? Because I’m ticked off by environmental
zealotry in the form of bullying litigation.
My
son attends ninth grade at a badly overcrowded high school on the
northwest side of Tucson, and this would not be the case if the
Center for Biological Diversity had not caused an expensive
two-year delay in new school construction because of its concern
for the welfare of the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl. Given that the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has declared 731,712 acres of
Arizona as critical habitat for the pygmy owl, and that the high
school site in question occupies a mere 90 acres on which the owl
has not even been seen, it seems excessive to make a big issue out
of this school site.
I would be inclined to vote
for measures to preserve the natural environment in Arizona, but
Proposition 202 would have achieved a lot of its growth control
through litigation that would likely make lawyers wealthy while
harming public institutions such as schools. Jon
Spencer
Tucson, Arizona
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline More than advertising.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
