Cow Hockey Parable

Dear True,

I'm still confused: is the Sacred Cow the town? or the harbor? or both? Mr. Shinners has composed a piece of cow hockey. I've taken my printout and numbered all the paragraphs so we can more clearly discuss it.

In paragraph #2 Shinners says people want to see the cow by boat. They can already come by boat. And what do they bring to the cow? They spend their money on liquor and food. No one is busy buying stuff to furnish their boat or stuff to mail home to furnish their homes. No one is staying in the motels because they can live on their boats. So it's a fallacy to say the boaters are increasing revenues in the town. The truth is: retail is hurting. Gasoline prices are keeping people from making the long drive to Grand Marais, and once they get here, they're hanging on to their pennies so they can afford the gasoline to get home. East Bay is having trouble getting full occupancy. The proposed Harbour House isn't selling out. God only knows about the Cobblestone Cove.

In paragraph #2 Shinners says "some wanted to ride their 4 wheel vehicles to see this amazing animal." Bull. The motor-brained locals want to scoot around unbridled, risking their lives and adding to the chaos of tourist traffic. Fine. This'll work until the first one winds up as a hood ornament on a Monson truck.

In paragraph #3 he mentions that for many years issues like this were discussed and decisions were reached that everyone could live with. Again, bull. Sometimes the contentiousness was so rife that issues were simply tabled because no one could agree, or else The Good Ole Boys Club running the current City Council went ahead illegally and allowed the changes they wanted to go through. Either way, the citizenry has grown bitter because its opinions have not been respected, no matter how vocally or elegantly expressed.

In paragraph #4 he says "Someone suggested that the cow be sold and the money used to save the town." Is this a reference to the illegal construction of the Cobblestone Condos and the razing of the Sea Wall? Have these two transactions saved the town? Not that I can see. The first appears like a carbuncle on the face of the harbor and the second appears stalled out.

In paragraph #4 he goes on to say "People became convinced of the righteousness of their cause to the exclusion of any compromise." Oh, yeah? Is he speaking from his own agenda? Or is he using that tired "argument by exadgeration" that if you don't agree with his views, you don't want any change whatsoever. The implication of this specious argument is that anyone who disagrees is foolish, that it's a black or white situation: you either want total change or you're small-minded. I, for one, am so tired of this old chestnut I could scream. Everyone with a brain in Grand Marais knows that change is inevitable and some changes are for the better, they just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, most people agree that the harbor could stand some updating and modification; they just don't think it needs to be totally filled with slips. Since we already know the boaters live on their boats and save their money for gasoline, food, and booze, their contribution to the revenues of the town are fairly minimal, but their annoyance factor is enormous because they clot the harbor, ruining its tranquil beauty and clear water with their noise, sewage, and oil slicks.

Also, in my day, I've known a large number of bullies who'd bandy the word "compromise" around like the white flag of truce when, in reality, their vision of compromise was "do it my way." They never compromised; they expected everyone else to conform and comply. I'm all for compromise provided it's really compromise and not coercion masquerading as compromise.

In paragraph #5, the people who lived in the town and have moved away are the ones who have made their personal financial killing and have moved on to greener (for them) pastures, leaving everyone else holding the bag. The former community spirit Jim Shinners seems to be pining for has been destroyed by the profiteers who gave no thought to the community or its citizens. It's been destroyed by city officials who circumvent the law to further their own private ends. It's being undermined by the massive influx of landsharks, profiteers, and speculators who've gathered here like vultures around a kill.

Lastly, in paragraph #6, he talks about how the "unbridled" development has been stopped and "the sacred cow preserved." If only! "Some of the people were very happy." Yes!

There is a way to preserve what is precious and still court progressive change. It involves common sense, a commodity sadly lacking in current community leadership. Rather than increasing the number of junk-filled tourist souvenir shops, we should take a lesson from the success of the North House School and increase the promotion of this town as a learning center. Grand Marais should become a mecca for those interested in nature, forgotten crafts, art, theatre and writing. It should become a kind of university town in a jewel-like setting, attracting students to its classes, tourists to its shows and performances. and residents as permanent faculty. The city should throw its weight behind these efforts. In addition, the small business park should do what it was designed to do, namely, be a SMALL business park rather than a huge government enclave that destroys the town with light pollution so that viewing the Northern Lights from your back yard becomes a thing of the past.

If Mr. Shinners and others of his ilk have the final say, our beloved Grand Marais is on the way to the abattoir.

A friend of Grand Marais