In New Albany, do we really pay attention to what we claim to be paying attention to?

Horbovetz's point is well-taken in the context of my own blogging experience. It has been only recently that posts about what I'd consider genuine matters of importance in New Albany -- TASER threats from intemperate bureaucrats, future city hall cost overruns, the mayor's deforestation fetish, City Hall's street grid ineptitude -- even get close to the readership levels accorded restaurants and "fun and cool" stuff.

But ... it's getting better. Thanks for reading, and don't forget to vote.

IT'S TIME TO START PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT WE CLAIM TO PAY ATTENTION TO, by Arian Horbovetz (The Urban Phoenix via Strong Towns)

 ... We all love happy, positive, sense-enticing news that makes us feel good about our communities. In fact, I truly believe we need more of this kind of positivity with regard to our cities. Community engagement and a feeling personal ownership over the places we live are the first steps toward empowering our urban cores and our neighborhoods.

But, as with everything, we need balance. As we rejoice with the great stories of new restaurants and fun events in our cities, let’s remember that our attentions also need to focus on the complexities and intricacies of our cities, some of which are difficult to digest. Issues of poverty, equity, transportation, jobs, community health and diversity continue to be overshadowed by the bright lights of “progress” in our city centers ...

"Something Wicked This Way Comes," from the New Yorker.

This excellent essay (thanks, R) offers a view of the difference between wicked and tame problems, and more strikingly to me, reference to three basic forms of reactionary response to progress and social advancement: Perversity, futility, and jeopardy. We've heard these troglodyte responses so many times in New Albany that the effect is somewhat numbing. We'll hear them again, won't we?

online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html" style="font-weight: bold;">SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES, posted by Atul Gawande (New Yorker)

... Two decades ago, the economist Albert O. Hirschman published a historical study of the opposition to basic social advances; “the rhetoric of intransigence,” as he put it. He examined the structure of arguments—in the eighteenth century, against expansions of basic rights, such as freedom of speech, thought, and religion; in the nineteenth century, against widening the range of citizens who could vote and participate in government; and, in the twentieth century, against government-assured minimal levels of education, economic well-being, and security. In each instance, the reforms aimed to address deep, pressing, and complex societal problems—wicked problems, as we might call them. The reforms pursued straightforward goals but required inherently complicated, difficult-to-explain means of implementation. And, in each instance, Hirschman observed, reactionary argument took three basic forms: perversity, futility, and jeopardy.