March 22, 2000

A quarter century reacting to Pacifica

One column at a time, most weeks of the year, this piece has appeared since March 1975, when Bill Drake suggested I might like to try my hand at column writing. While my wife is the mathematician of the family, by my reckoning that makes a full quarter of a century The Reactor has appeared in the Tribune.

In spite of the fact I've been described (in no less a place than the Congressional Record) as a journalist, I can't truly claim that exalted distinction. I admire journalists, immensely. A journalist is a person whose goal is true objectivity. He or she aims to be right down the middle, fair to all sides. I write a column of opinion. My opinion.

When I write about music, I make no bones about preferring Beethoven to the Beatles and John Philip Souza to heavy metal. While I do like Open Space, I think the concept requires balance. For example, the 1500 or so acres, almost a fifth, of Pacifica that is in federally owned open space should be used more creatively for the greater pleasure of the people of the Bay Area. The hundreds of acres of privately owned Pacifica lands that some would mindlessly set aside as open space should instead be examined for highest and best uses, which might be open space but might also be condos or high rises.

During the past 25 years a lot of people have often stated to me some variation of "I don't always agree with you, but..."

I would be thrilled to be able to say my arguments were so persuasive hundreds or thousands of readers had changed their minds. Realistically, that's unlikely. More likely, I've confirmed their own wisdom in the minds of readers, whether they agreed or disagreed with me.

At best I've provided some ammunition for those who agreed with me to use in their arguments with those who didn't.

That does bring up a question. What would it take for you to change your mind, let's say 179 degrees, on a given issue? If you believe the way to slow down traffic on your street is a stop sign on every corner, what would make you decide that's a terrible idea? Or that it should be left to the City Engineer's expertise?

If you're a fervent and devoted follower of one particular religious movement, what would it take to change your religion drastically? If you're fervently devoted to all the concepts embedded in the phrase "a woman's right to choose" what would make you instead a fervent pro-lifer? Minds do change. The Roe of Roe vs. Wade is now pro-life. It goes without saying the then unborn child at the crux of Roe v. Wade is almost certainly fervently pro-life.

One of the issues of the past 25 years where I wound up on the losing side was the Devil's Slide Tunnel. I was for the bypass, as were most of those persons who thought that San Mateo's coastal areas deserved the chance to be more fully utilized. The tunnel, like most of the previous transportation plans for that crucial coastal strip between Pacifica and Montara, was thought of as a way to limit access. If you spend $130,000,000 just to keep most of the old road in place, you will definitely limit access and the growth of the area between Montara and Ano Nuevo. What would change your mind?

E mail was not even thought of when Paul Azevedo started writing the Reactor. Now you can write him at Paul@thereactor.net and he will have it in a speedy fashion.