Focus on the facts and ignore the ad hominem arguments
The text for my first college logic course devoted a chapter to
informal fallacies, one of which was ad hominem argument. The
argument appeals to passion rather than the intellect by attacking
persons rather than the content of their argument.
Such is the case with much of the Town Center debate. Is General
Growth a bad neighbor, a voracious remote corporation only interested
in profit; and, is Mr. Caruso a businessman whose priority is not
maximizing profit? Is Mr. Caruso a David to a Goliath General Growth;
or, is he a billionaire? Is the Galleria a prison-like fortress? Is
Mr. Caruso's purchase of the Just Tires property an attempt to be the
"dog in the manger" (if I can't have it, I want to be in a position
to stand in the way of others getting it)?
The answers to these questions as well as the myriad other attacks
on General Growth or Mr. Caruso (which ignore the fact that there are
ordinary citizens who also oppose and support Mr. Caruso's project)
are ad hominem attacks. The answers to these questions have no
rational bearing on whether the business terms (and the free land
given to Mr. Caruso) are a prudent use of public resources -- my
primary concern. The answers, whatever they may be, will not alter
the traffic consequences that will be created by the project. They
will have no bearing on whether there is lack of connectivity of the
project with the Galleria and Brand Boulevard, which may put small
businesses at risk.
These latter issues are critical to the long-term well being of
the city. To engage in ad hominem arguments serves to obscure and
divert attention away from an informed and rational debate on these
issues. Ad hominem arguments, by their emotional appeal to our
passions, may affect the position some take on the Caruso project;
but, they do not advance rational public debate. I couldn't care less
if General Growth is the bad guy and Mr. Caruso is the good guy (or
vice versa) when it come to making decisions about the wisdom of the
project's business terms, its traffic consequences, and its impact on
small-business owners surrounding the project.
I submit public policy is best served by a factual, informed and
rational public debate of these issues. I understand that such an
emotionally charged dispute as the Caruso project cannot be totally
devoid of some ad hominem argument; but, I would hope opponents and
supporters of Mr. Caruso's project would hold down such general,
