Uncritical Thinking About Our Downtown Parking

by Ira Winn

Men are often scorned for being "too rational" and not intuitive enough to let go and find some simple truth. This is, in some respects, all too true. But in another sense it is worrisome for a different reason: the opposite of logical and therefore "critical thinking" is uncritical thinking - which is, frankly speaking, not thinking at all. Somehow a balance must be struck that combines logic and intuition, and that blocks out those human tendencies to compartmentalize contradictory thoughts, to become lost in self-serving illusions, and to become obsessive about our conclusions.

Too much thinking, my grandmother used to warn, is not good for the head! I don't know if this admonition is in the same spirit plane as another conundrum: "Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined" - but the advice, I have been told, is worth pondering and perhaps taking.

Sitting in or participating at city council hearings, I am amused at the logical inconsistencies in the arguments put forward by proponents of parking garages as a solution to downtown ills; I wrote them down just for chuckles on a dreary day ... and I'll offer some choice examples.

First, I wish to note my conclusion that there are three states of mind or mind-sets operating, and that almost all of us swing between states one and two in the course of daily living, although always justifying our thoughts and actions in terms of the first:

1) Rational Mind: analytical, logical, hypothesizing and testing - constantly searching for consistency.

2) Non-rational mind: illusory, compartmentalizing, denying logical contradiction, gambling on hunches, nostrums (fake medicines), and giving in to the press of conformity.

3) Buddha or "Big" mind: limitless, an open sky or field unobscured by the scurry of personal thoughts and feelings; seeing past it all; beyond the stormy sea of worries and issues.

It is the second category, the non-rational or irrational, that I will illustrate with examples drawn from City Council hearings last fall. These specious arguments drawn and used successfully by proponents of the proposed new Marsh Street garage illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of open forum and debate, a fact of life that is reflected in the haunting and knowing smile associated with Buddha mind. For hidden underneath the facade of 3-minute public participation is the reality of powerful and monied special interests who pressure the Council; also the force of political admonition that "to get along you have to go along." Sometimes the public wakes up and the rational mind takes control. Then the politicos dance to a different tune. Time will tell.

Following are eight fascinating examples of compartmentalized thinking taken from those hearings last fall, and which will continue in one form or another in 1998. It all points toward commencement of actual garage construction in 1999.

Obviously, I have left out any contradictions in my own thinking on the garage, much preferring to be recognized as a "rational" observer. The examples are in the form of paired contradictory arguments of parking garage proponents, which I dutifully noted to city fathers with no reply to date.

1) "We are agreed that we wish to maintain the pedestrian character of downtown SLO."

"We need to build Marsh Street addition so more shoppers can drive downtown."

2) "People won't park on the edges of downtown because they don't want to walk any distance into town center."

"People are parking all over the edges of downtown in surrounding neighborhoods and walking into town."

3) "Parking garages do NOT attract or cause new traffic."

"The reason we need new garage space is to attract new customers into downtown,"

4) "The Marsh Street garage expansion is the best possible site, according to the experts."

"We have not done a comparative study of all alternative sites because City Council told us to assume Marsh Street as a given."

5) "The new garage will not increase the traffic burden downtown and in adjacent residential areas."

"75 percent of the 3475 newly generated trips daily in and out of the garage will impact the area adjacent."

6) "The Marsh Street garage will have "less than significant impact on downtown San Luis Obispo."

"Joined to the existing garage, it will be the largest building in the city center and will require a variance because it exceeds city height limits."

7) "The new garage will allow the city to close many surface lots and bring those parkers into the new spaces created."

"The purpose of the garage is to provide parking for NEW shoppers who have up to now been avoiding the downtown."

An important conclusion would seem to be evident: Let the buyer beware. Let the citizen awaken. Let the politicians be worried. Let the Buddha smile. And let the muddy waters recede. m