The Palace of Malice

On February 7, 2008 the Los Alamos County Council voted to destroy the physical symbol of the Independence of Los Alamos.

On December 21, 2010 5 Members of the Los Alamos County Council, 2 of whom voted in the affirmative in the above cited action, voted to destroy the liberties and rights of the citizens of Los Alamos and to vacate the Charter which was the codification of the Independence of Los Alamos.

The Palace of Malice, akin to Nero's Golden Palace and destined to become home to Ozymandius, will be built upon a foundation of legal chicanery, ruthless manipulation, self-aggrandizement, wanton destruction, and the wholesale abuse of Public Trust and authority --- but at what cost, and borne by whom?

Reality Check -- No community of any size can long survive the destruction of its heritage, the dissolution of its freedoms, and the permanent division of its citizens.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

29) A Matter of Inclusion

It is a matter of inclusion.

Right now the Golf Course is exclusive to golfers. Non-golfers cannot use the facility. They are excluded. But it doesn't have to be that way. A voter said to me, "we need a Chilis or Applebys. We used to have Trinity Beverage which was a good local alternative but they're gone". So, put a variation of TBC in the clubhouse. 1) the non-golfers of Los Alamos will be able to use the golf course facilities thereby increasing local revenues to the golf course, 2) a TBC facility at the golf course is what tournaments are looking for -- they want a food and beverage manager, a liquor license, tables, chairs, waiters. They don't simply want a kitchen and bring-your-own-everything-else. By providing this aspect to the facility, the golf course attracts tournaments and tourists who are spending money earned outside the county line. Creates a new income stream for Los Alamos. 3) The amount that the County government spends on supporting the golf course may well decrease, but even if not, local residents will be more supportive of supporting the golf course if they see that it is useable by the non-golfer population.

It is a matter of inclusion.

Right now the Stables are exclusive to horse owners. Non-horse owners cannot use the area. They are excluded. But it doesn't have to be that way. We can have, and the quit-claim deed allows for, a rent-a-horse riding stable. Non-horse owners would still be able to enjoy the horse experience. They would be able to rent the horse for trail rides, or take lessons in horsemanship. This would generate a whole new source of local revenues and attached grt. Tourists come to western mountain towns expecting to do a trail ride. A riding stable would fill this need thereby creating a new income stream to Los Alamos as more tourist dollars, earned beyond the county line, are spent in the county.

Its a matter of inclusion.

Right now the airport is exclusive to airplane owners. Non-airplane owners cannot use the airport. They are excluded. But it doesn't have to be that way. We once had a fairly successful air passenger service. We can do so again. When people can go to the airport for a flight to Abq, Santa Fe, or the Denver area then they will more readily support the airport activities. They will spend local money on those flights. And tourists will be able to fly directly to Los Alamos paying for those flights with money earned outside of the county line.

It is a matter of inclusion.

Pajarito Mountain figured this out. Rather than being exclusive to skiers they are open to snowboarders, sledders, and tubers during the winter, and in summer months they are open to bikers, hikers, picnicers, bird-watchers. Increased inclusion increases income.

Its a matter of inclusion.

Just as the golf course seems to be exclusive to golfers excluding non-golfers, and unnecessarily so; just as the stables seem to be exculsive to horse owners excluding non-horse owners, and unnecessarily so; so, too, Los Alamos is exclusive to Scientists excluding non-Scientists.............. and unnecessarily so.

It is a matter of the reality of inclusion and the perception of exclusion. Inclusion is what is truly meant by "diversity", be it diversity of population or diversity of economic activity.

It is not enough to say, "well, people have equal access" when the parameters of the access are narrowly defined. It is not enough to say, "everyone can share" when the barriers to the sharing are such that the sharing is not possible. In fact, the conditions make the statements lies which are readily seen through by all those who are excluded by the conditions. And that creates jealousy, resentment, anger, and open hostility. And unnecessarily so when it need not be so.

Over the past few years, county policy makers have been following advice best suited to Winrock Shopping Center. But, then again, county policy makers have tended to think of Los Alamos as an office complex surrounded by a shopping center. Wrong model.

You want a model for Los Alamos success? Look at your Mountain. They have it figured out.

No comments:

Post a Comment