Based on the Gazette’s failure to mention this photo that shows the $400,000 bank stabilization project was unnecessary, it is clear that we are supposed to pretend this massive lie doesn’t matter to the city that funded it. News headlines emphasize the ends justifying the means and everyone wants us to move forward into our new metalic destiny. The wall’s been built and the beavers are sort of okay, and the civic thing to do now is pretend that it was an investment in Martinez’ future, (or at least a downpayment on Martinez’ past). We are supposed to pretend that sworn testimony of imminent danger was unrelated to actual danger of any kind, and that this is the way things get done in small towns.
While we’re clapping our hands for Tinkerbell to come, the Gazette allows Mr. Parker to remind us that we should also pretend that this obscene amount of money was spent “because of the beavers” and that in addition to chewing through a 10 million dollar flood project, the beavers hungrily devoured Mark Ross’ finacial backing for re-election. After they chomped their way through concrete, our pretend beavers obviously set their teeth on the veracity and self-respect of the entire council. Will they stop at nothing?
The need for make-believe requires flexibility, credulity and in this case the dexterity to keep up with the speedy sucession of stories. First we were asked to believe that this was for the good of the town, and not for the benefit of one property owner. Then while some of us were still busy pretending the critical patient was Bertola’s wall, we were told by Ross that it was actually the bank near the elections building that was in danger. This was a little harder to pretend because there were all those pesky engineering reports contradicting this argument. So that make-believe didn’t last long.
Its primary function was to move us to the next mythology, which was pretending that this sheetpile was destined all along for that part of the creek and the city was merely keeping a promise. Keeping promises is important. Who can object to that? It is true that some work was intended for that bank section, and that it was ultimately left undone, but I highly doubt the plan was a block of sheetpile, intended to save a bank that was never in danger.
Never mind. We were asked to pretend that it was life-saving, then pretend that it was face-saving, and along the way pretend that the reasons for pretending hadn’t changed.
Finally, we are told two days before an election with two incumbents asking for our vote, to pretend that it didn’t matter.
While you’re working on your imaginations, you might try pretending that the siphoning of funds into a lumbering Redevopment Agency would be good for the city, and that a council who keeps its promise to one person by taking the money from thousands has your best interests at heart.
[youtube:http://youtube.com/watch?v=DXY_8cJlGMc]
