In its Feb. 19 editorial titled “Avoidance Behavior,” the Journal-World questions my aversion to a public vote on an industrial land/open space proposal. Fair enough. I’d like to respond.

It’s not always true that public votes best serve the public interest. Perhaps the LJW reached a similar conclusion when it editorialized against the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Of course, the role of the public in public policy is an ongoing debate and there are reasonable people who might agree that election is the right way to handle this matter. OK. But if this proposal merits a public vote, why not do the same for other proposals of similar cost and impact?

Fact is that most taxpayers don’t have time to study detailed initiatives and their meaning to our future. They elect officeholders to gather facts, analyze and act on their behalf. And we do. It’s not perfect, but I believe the model of electing representatives then holding them accountable still offers the most considerate, deliberative form of decision-making.

The LJW holds that proposals of merit can and should be “sold” to the public. In general, I agree. But I’m not so sure in this case. The industrial land/open space proposal won’t feature conceptual drawings and neat lists of projects that typically enable voters to assess value. This proposal is all about process. It has to be.

We can’t identify specific parcels for industrial development, for that would drive price manipulation. We can’t identify at-risk open space, for that could trigger destruction. This proposal is about process, about a pool of money used in response to opportunity, risk and need. Unfortunately, process doesn’t lend itself to neat political packaging.

A quick word on Farmland, which may be one the few defined projects in this proposal. I chair a group that has worked for quite a while on putting that site back to work. If the decision is to require an election, shall we suspend our efforts until then? If we refer to Farmland in a campaign then see the bankruptcy court award the site to a private party, will we be accused of bait and switch? How does a ballot issue capture such subtleties and conditions without risking collapse under its own wordiness?

The LJW rightly noted that my greatest concern is risk of delay, and of failure.

This proposal is extremely important to our future. At present Lawrence lacks even one industrial site of 100 acres or more; we have an 87-acre site, then our inventory drops to 5-, 10- and 15-acre tracts. This deficit in industrial land is hurting us today and will continue to hurt us until more space is available. Destruction of Elkins Prairie and encroachment upon Signal Oak demonstrate the ongoing threat to our heritage, environmental and wildlife resources. We must do more to preserve our greatest treasures for future generations.

Pending a public election, shall we further delay addressing these long-standing concerns? How many potential employers will look elsewhere? How much more of our quality of life will be plowed under?

And what happens if the votes ultimately stack against this proposal? Are we ready to conclude that taxpayers don’t want their money used for industrial development and preservation of open space? The LJW has supported many of the initiatives that would become less possible in light of a negative vote on this proposal.

I realize that my candor on this point may be viewed as inconsistent with my standing as a publicly elected official. My defense is that elections are not always perfect reflections of the public will and interest. There will be a lot of forces at play in November, and not all of them will serve to clarify the long-term implications of short-term actions – especially when it comes to “process.”

Among those who complain that this community is not sufficiently aggressive in pursuit of a promising future, none is as persistent as the Lawrence Journal-World. Just a couple of weeks ago, an editorial described Lawrence as a town of “little hitters” with an insufficient commitment to our future. That may be true. It may also be true that the Journal-World occasionally sends a mixed message. My willingness to forgo a public vote on this issue may be too aggressive. Maybe not. Fortunately, I’m only one vote among eight. Together, we will come to the decision that is best for our community and its future.