Former Mayor Manross Nails It Regarding Parks Initiative

By Ronald Sampson

As a relatively fiscally conservative person and a natural Republican, I **want** to dislike most government spending that I see. It’s a happy place to distrust it. But the activists on both sides of any issue tend to ruin it for everybody, finding any reason to be angry, even if it means resorting to half-truths, ignorance, or purposeful obfuscation. It’s an unfortunate part of policy, and by proxy, politics.

More perniciously, people who desperately desire to stand out and get some clout will do so: the political left does it by distorting anything that Trump says into an indicator that he’s Hitler-reincarnate, and the right did it by attempting to convince us that Hillary Clinton was the leader of a cabal that harvested kids for body parts and adrenochrome (remember PizzaGate? Yikes, conservatives…yikes).

Who you trust is important. And people like former Scottsdale Mayor Mary Manross matter; a steady, reasonable hand who has weighed in on Scottsdale’s issues judiciously, not suspiciously. So when she wrote this statement of support for the initiatives coming to the ballot, we all should give a listen.

Also notable are the voices of dissent against it, both who they are and their rationales. While attempting to not make this political, it is irritating that one particular candidate for Mayor uses falsehoods (if not outright lies) when talking about it, as well as certain activists who clearly are looking for sway and clout.

I’ve heard these people talk about it as a tax increase, but it’s very much a tax decrease. The sales tax will go from 0.2% to 0.15%. In what world (other than a world of dishonest clout-chasing) is that a tax increase? Stated services would be increased; that’s a good thing. There is talk about it being a “slush fund”…well, do you have a problem with how the 0.2% tax is being used now? If not, then why would you assume that a lesser amount is somehow some slush fund?

It feels as though it’s the definition of bad-faith arguments: attempting to fill a vacuum of information with the presumption of bad intentions with absolutely zero proof to imply that. It’s the worst of our politics.

That’s not to say that questions shouldn’t be asked, that everyone should simply fall in line. Absolutely not. But if the people talking the loudest aren’t at least comparing it to our current situation and wondering if this is an improvement over that (or an improvement over the alternative: no funds dedicated to our parks), then there’s a good chance that they’re bad faith actors, more interested in gaining followers and clout or attempting to make a name for themselves politically then considering the best interest of the city.