I was struck by the congruence of Dan Haley's April 6 column ("Win or lose, VMA needs a serious talking to") and Diana Carpenter's parting shot. Haley noted that a bully-elite VMA resented debate that might evoke dissent from its half-century hegemony. For weeks, I wondered why VMA's departing Trapani, receiving an award, used her time to denounce VMA's rivals. The last two weeks, I received screeds from Trapani's conclave, woundedly posturing as challengers might?#34;angry, patronizing, and contemptuous.
On voters' rejection of Trapani's VMA heiress, Carpenter told the crowd she was "shocked as could be." Doubtless she was, since she assured her crowd that "single issue voters and angry people will not be allowed to take over Oak Park. People have worked too hard for more than 30 years to allow lies and deceit to win. We will continue because we are better and more knowledgeable."
Well, here's one multiple-issue voter, ma'am. I voted against: Your reflexive defense of a stupid ordinance when an ounce of compassion would have made money; your meanness when an ounce of compassion would have cost but a little; your Whiteco/development fetish that treats citizens as an obstacle to the "better" and "more knowledgeable" sorts.
As to "angry," are citizens wrong to be angry at leaders who condemn dissent, even if they are less-than-30-year-tenured riffraff who unfortunately interrupted Diana's plans? Angry, about a pronounced decline in quality of life over the last five years? Whiteco erects, condos gobble street parking slots (leaving 15-minute hair-salon parks), taxes do not abate, traffic soars. Some of us voted against Carpenter and entourage for many reasons, and some of them pertain to arrogance as well as policy.