Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:53:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Brad Page
Subject: Chatham Park: After PDD approval
A reply to Samantha Capitol: “PittsboroMatters leadership: “neutral,” dishonest, or misguided?”
Though her somewhat long post goes into considerable detail on the Chatham Park development she leaves one glaring point unaddressed:
Why cannot all these details be ironed out before the Project Design Document Master Plan is approved? What are the legal implications for the town and us people if we agree to this Document before all the details are not known? Shall we trust the rather undefined and unexplained terms to be defined by Chatham Park’s developers at some later time?
Also, I’ve met and listened to the leaders of Pittsboro Matters give lengthy presentations. Near as I can tell they’re asking valid questions. Do you have a problem with this? I sense here a “you’re for us or agin’ us” attitude in your argument.
Finally, defining your opponent in pejorative terms isn’t the way to win an argument here. Treat your listeners as stupid and it will backfire; swamping them with information will do the same if your information is merely talking points meant to elicit reaction rather than intelligent inquiry. You might address the questions above first and then take on the questions they ask one at a time with full answers.
Americans are no longer willing to trust stake holders in large money projects to stick to the intentions so beautifully described in promotional literature. This Project Design Document appears to me as little more than that.
Intelligent questioning is what we need, not promises.
Brad Page