I-69 coming down the pike
The recent protest at the Indiana Statehouse has raised the profile of the conflict over the proposed extensions of I-69 through Indiana. Like most of these projects, the people most concerned over the extension are regular folks in the way and environmentalists, both concerned over the disruption of the natural terrain.
Nuvo has a piece up on the protest that points out that the protest itself was comprised of about 75 folks, out of which only a third were arrested. It also notes that by a factor of 20 to 1, comments that IDOT received on the project were overwhelmingly negative.
The Star notes today that only 3 of the originally arrested 24 protested is facing charges: The alleged spray painter, Robert P. Ivers of Indianapolis, his housemate, Karoline Knable, who allegedly videotaped the painting, and then refused to turn it into police (her alleged crime), and Richmond’s Melissa Calhoun, who is charged with battering a police officer, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and refusing to give her ID to police. The other 21 arrestees (including my alleged pie thrower (William Kristol, remember)) have not been charged, and I guess they were arrested just because.
Now, I tend to agree with Doug Masson on the actual spray painting. People do not tend to endear folks to their cause by destroying state property (we all pay for it, you know). But I do think it is ironic that, because of the vandalism, the protest, and hence the opposition to the interstate, has gotten lots of media exposure. Because of this, people around the state are at least thinking about whether the new road is a good thing or not. So, in a sense, by taking the “quiet protest” to an extreme, Ivers may have significantly helped his cause. That is the unfortunate thing about or media today: I’ll bet that the originally planned protest would have hardly have been mentioned in the press, and not at all outside of Indianapolis, but for the paint.
For my part, I admit to finding interstate highways rather ugly and very noisy. I would not want to live anywhere near one. On our recent trips to Red River Gorge in Kentucky, I was disheartened by the extent to which the big highway detracted from the natural beauty of a very beautiful region. I-69 will have a similar effect as it plows through southern Indiana. I do admit to having a personal bias, though, the expansion would cut many hours out of my route to my parents house.
June 9th, 2005 22:48
You really identify a sore point with respect to media attention. Which is better - to be ignored completely or to be hated for your actions? If you’re ignored, you are never going to change any minds because you simply won’t be able to engage the mind in the first place. If you do something that gets you negative attention, you’re likely to alienate people, but maybe you will also have the opportunity to change minds once they are listening.
I suppose if the issue is close, you play it straight and hope to win the day through conventional means. If the game is pretty much lost, I guess you try the Hail Mary.
As for the interstates — I sure do appreciate them. I’ve driven I-70, I-75, and I-65 end-to-end and been on a good number of them at one time or another. I shudder to think what taking US 40 or US 6 to Colorado must be like if you have a schedule to keep.
I-69 from Indy to Evansville? I have no real opinion. I’ve never wanted to get to Evansville before. I’m sure somebody does though.
June 10th, 2005 20:04
I think the hard part is keeping to the issue. Often these conflicts distract the activists and the public — the debate turns too quickly to whether the protest is right or wrong, whether the police are right or wrong, etc. The message the activists should be getting out has nothing to do with that — it has to do only with the highway. They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, and maybe they are right, but you have to pay attention to what you are publicizing.