Green Meadow debate stirs memories of Mom

     Greek philosopher Socrates and my late mother had something in common: an inadequate forum from which to argue the defining segments of their lives. That's why I suspect both would approve of how one issue is being addressed in Hudson.

     For those who don't know, there's an exchange of views taking place over the town's future. The owners of a beautiful land tract known as Green Meadow want to maximize its value. . They're planning a commercial development called Sagamore Crossing.

     That's a worthy ambition. Certainly, the owner of any property should be able to take advantage of that type of opportunity, provided it doesn't create a problem for others.

     That has been a standing principle in our society since it was founded. Developing capital (wealth in the form of money or other assets) is essentially the reason our country grew from a few colonies into the greatest nation in the world.

     The drive to make one's life better is an American trait, whether the process involves running. a business or earning a salary and funding a 401(k) plan for retirement. One seeks the security that wealth brings in whatever form or amount that's required to meet one's needs.

     In fact, anyone who doesn't think in these terms ignores future betterment and self-sustenance. As such people get older, most acquire common sense and change that attitude. If not, they often become parasites, relying for their support on government handouts confiscated from the income other people earn.

     Given the value placed on self-betterment, one would expect the proposed Sagamore Crossing development in Hudson to meet with applause. However, there's a snag in that bag. The operative phrase is "provided it doesn't create a problem for others."

     Many Hudson residents believe a commercial enterprise as large as Sag-amore Crossing would have a detrimental effect on the town. Most concerned are those who own property abutting the proposed development.

     Many fear their property values would decrease were neighboring scenery to change from its current meadowland beauty to unsightly loading docks of retail establishments. That fear is certainly justified.

     The imposition of "view taxation" has made most homeowners acutely aware of the part scenery now plays in property evaluation. Tabled Senate Bill 491 officially recognizes that connection.

     Added to that concern is one that affects all Hudson residents. Many believe such a large development would require property tax increases. There are arguments to both sides of this issue, and both are being addressed in a reasoned debate online.

     The online involvement is historically significant. Politicians and other issue proponents have been using the Web for several years to win hearts and minds. Now, ordinary people are using it fora similar effect.

     The interests of common residents with few resources are pitted against a corporation with extensive assets. Yet, each has an equal forum from which to propagate its views.

     Hudsonians are making their arguments on HudsonGrassrootsCentral. com, along with another site currently under construction, SaveHudson.com. Green Meadow Inc. is using SagamoreCrossing.com.

     At no point in history, until this era, has such equality of expression been so available. In other times, such argumentation was limited by being fed through the press or other media serving its own agenda.

     My mother could have testified to that point. I was 13 years old when the state of Connecticut informed her it was taking our land by eminent domain. The state dictated what amount she'd be paid. If she didn't like it, she'd be forced out. Mother believed the sum was insufficient compared to the market value of our farm.

     However, she wasn't articulate enough to write persuasive letters to the editor or to garner political support. Neither was she, a widow, wealthy enough to oppose the state legally.

     Moreover, press coverage was slanted. While the state's position received front-page accolades to progress, an article on Mother's opposition was relegated to the back pages. Seeing this, Mother gave up in tears.

     She sought to escape the experience by moving to Lempster. Still, memory of that unequal forum embittered even her final days.

     Yet, Mother's experience was minor compared to what Socrates encountered. Standing accused of corrupting Athenian youth and disbelieving in the ancestral gods, he was placed on trial. His jury was composed of 500 people, most of whom despised his politically incorrect questioning.

     Not only was insufficient time allotted for his defense, but also, getting his argument past the noise of 500 bodies proved impossible. So, for lack of an adequate forum from which to persuasively argue his case, he lost and was condemned to death.

     An adequate forum is essential to any persuasive endeavor. Surely, recent primary candidates who couldn't afford much publicity exemplify that point.

     Were Socrates to come back today and read the tenor and quality of debate taking place on these Hudson Web sites, I suspect he'd be impressed. To their credit, neither side engages in name-calling or emotional manipulation. The claims and rebuttals are all fact-based.

     Clearly, both groups are intelligent enough to know this contest will be won by whoever presents the most persuasive argument. That's a condition for which Socrates could only have wished.