Does this mean that people who might question what they see as out of scale and character growth are not smart or not thinking of the greater good? Is there no longer any middle path where the greater good includes everyone? Is it not possible to develop with some sensitivity to what is already in place, such as historic resources and valuable public view sheds? Has the term “smart growth� morphed into a marketing term used to imply that people who question are stupid?

I think we will have less polarization and more collaboration by avoiding pigeonholing through innuendo those who believe that questioning has an important value. This can result in people giving up their own internal authority and no longer questioning or thinking critically for themselves. In this situation, everyone becomes a “groupie� of a group and succumbs to groupthink. I constantly hear pigeonholing phrases meant to stop objective analysis and conversation: “chamber of concrete,� “flat earth people,� “NIMBYs.� This kind of automatic lumping is akin to, “If you are against the war, then you must be for the terrorists.�

Let’s all keep our minds open and think for ourselves. That’s even smarter.

— Camille Harris, Ventura
(The writer is chair of Ventura Citizens’ Organization for Responsible Growth. — Editor)