Thoughts on “Playing with Fire” by Scott LazenbyScott Lazenby’s Playing with Fire (2001) chronicles the trials and tribulations of everyday life in the burgeoning suburb of Trillium (near Portland, Oregon), where the local administration is slowly overstretched by a restive population.
Following the narrative of the protagonist, Ben Cromarty, we arrive at a City Council meeting which is to decide upon how to deliver a rollback on property taxes which the people of Trillium demanded through a special election.The debate comes to a head between two contrary perspectives: on one hand, Councilman Rob Titus, a lawyer, advocates a “tough love” (2) approach by radically (and visibly) reducing services in particular sectors to account for lower taxes; on the other, Councilman Seth Rosenberg, a businessman, is of the opinion that a more careful strategy needs to be developed by identifying such sectors that can do with lesser funds, in order to retain the efficiency of the administrative structure and public services.Councilman Titus’ hard stance is born out of the limited means with which the City Council of Trillium has to get by. He mentions that “[t]he property tax is all [they] have left” (2); therefore, increasing other taxes would not counterbalance the shortfall from lowering property taxes.
So, the only option for the council, according to Titus, is to cut services. He is clearly disgruntled by the vote and recommends that the “voters need to get the message that there are consequences to irresponsible decisions” (2). Thus, if they aspire to paying lower taxes, the people of Trillium also had to do with a sever reduction in public services. The implied effect of this move would be to show the voters that everyone is equally invested in community life, and by contributing less to the city, they should also become less dependent on it.
Council Rosenberg posits a more reserved approach to the situation. While he acknowledges that there are few options for the Council to exercise, he also responds to Titus’ “tough love” by saying that “it isn’t the [Council’s] job to teach voters a lesson” (2). Rosenberg takes into account the suggestion that an across-the-board cut in funds for services could evenly distribute the effect of lowering property taxes, but cautions that the results may not be as desirable as the policy sounds; he refers in particular to the senior citizens’ services budget where every dollar of Council money is matched by state and federal funding. Instead, he proposes that each department’s budget be analyzed to find which ones could best absorb the consequences of the fund crunch.
While Titus’ position is an understandable reaction from a frustrated administrator, it becomes more a case of playing fire by fire, instead of dousing the flames as best possible. In an ideal world one might like to see citizens assume responsibility for all of their specific needs, but the local administration can never use that thought to shirk the duties it must perform. Reduction in services without any consideration to their adverse effects would amount to an irresponsible step, and hence Councilman Titus’ arguments cannot be supported.Seth Rosenberg’s plan of action involves a more careful and deliberative approach, geared towards the best long-term management of Trillium’s public services.
By allocating funds without greatly compromising the quality of services, Rosenberg’s plan employs a strong logic backed by empirical analysis. Of the two positions, thus, Councilman Rosenberg’s argument appears more appropriate in the given situation. However, one wonders whether voters would have approved the cut in property taxes at all, had the City Council been more proactive in publicizing their financial situation and campaigning against the measure. As Ben Cromarty observed, the Council had been “lulled into complacency” (2) and thus taken by surprise when the results were declared.
The issue of the tax cut remains a thorn in the side of Cromarty though the entire novel. The property tax is shown to contribute only ten percent of the overall revenue of the city, but this middling amount is then used to pay for the police and fire departments, recreational and senior services, and the public library. A plan of redeploying the fire department – to make it more efficient without any significant retrenchment or loss of services – but the Trillium Firefighters Association (henceforth, TFA) does not take to it very easily. Another significant issue during the course of the novel concerned the activities of the Trillium Business Leaders Committee (henceforth, TBLC) regarding the circumstances under which the city gave the go-ahead to Nova Ceramics, a multinational company, to initiate a $50 million project in Trillium, which included a substantial housing development plan.
Both these outfits, the firefighters union and the TBLC, engage in a number of public campaigns to draw sympathy towards their positions.The TFA launched a number of public campaigns to draw opinion against the proposed redeployment of the fire department, which involved a separation of the fire response and emergency medical response provided by the department. The first such effort was a public proclamation – through a newspaper announcement – that the firefighters would do without a raise in pay for the following fiscal year. Later in the book, the TFA started a leaflet campaign, which urged the citizens of Trillium to mobilize against the redeployment by agitating the City Council, Mayor and City Manager.
This campaign was eventually expanded by mailing the residents of the city about the Council’s plan. A death caused from an apartment fire also provided the opportunity for the TFA to bolster its efforts by declaring that the Council’s proposal could increase the number of such cases. In addition, the TFA also took a vote of no-confidence in department chief Max Oakley, who had been relatively agreeable to the changes. Most significantly, the TFA floated a petition asking for the recall of the Mayor and two of the Councilors.
The TBLC, in a similar vein, started with an open letter to the City Council, questioning the motives behind the invitation to Nova Ceramics to start operations in Trillium. Soon after, they requested a writ of review on the Nova deal, which was then deliberated and dismissed in court. A short time later, the TBLC representatives also spoke at the City Council meeting, claiming that “the city manager misled and lied to the city council” (5). Further, the Committee conducted a phone-in straw ballot, televised on local cable television, where they asked if City Manager Ben Cromarty should be fired.
In either case, the job of the administration is precarious: the fire department, as Cromarty puts it, is “sacred” (2), while it is hard to judge (at least, initially) the purpose behind the TBLC’s staunch opposition to the moves of the City Council. The latter is perhaps the easier of the two to deal with, and hence easier to recommend measures for. One feels that the Council’s intentions are not to be questioned with regard to the Nova Deal, given that it offers greater employment to the residents of the city and neighboring areas, while bringing in greater revenues. If the TBLC were only interested in obstructing the deal, recommendation to the Council would have been to ride it out; if the resistance hardened, the TBLC should have been called upon to suggest a better and more practicable solution.
Importantly, the Council had to be dynamic in strongly reiterating that the final decision rests with it and the City Manager plays no role in the process. That way, distractions such as the TBLC’s straw ballot would not have got off the ground.The fire department is the trickier of the two, given that it enjoys a strong public image, and in general, public perception looks upon firefighters with great sympathy. However, decisions never come easy and tough times always call for tough measures.
It must be understood that the redeployment proposal does not seek to reduce services, but increase efficiency. This is the fulcrum of the debate which had to be emphasized. Of course, the TFA’s public relations machinery is impressive, but it should not bear upon the rationality of individual decision-making. If the Council could initiate an awareness campaign which detailed – in simple language, perhaps a number of graphs and diagrams – the proposed change, a large number of Trillium’s citizens would favor it.
Indeed, they were the very people who voted to pay less tax, and an innovative method to deliver that end would not escape the public’s grasp so easily. For the vote of no-confidence, obviously, no recommendation can be forwarded, since that remains the TFA’s internal matter; but, given the nature of the problem, there nothing but a tough stance which the Council should maintain.Throughout the novel, Ben Cromarty’s interactions with the citizens of Trillium show us how much the common man’s life is inextricably linked with the rules and laws which regulate the public space. Whether it were dealing with Sparky Bellah, looking to construct a 70-foot sign to advertise his car dealership, or responding to a late night phone call complaining about a broken streetlight, Cromarty’s experiences in Playing with Fire demonstrate that the very framework of modern-day society rests on a system of laws with which our livelihoods and security intertwine.
With so many interests and issues at stake, things become further complicated when Cromarty sits down with his assistant, Betty Sue Castle, to draw up a preliminary budget that would accommodate the property tax cut.At this point, our protagonist uses an analogy he calls the “motorcycle story” (11), with which he attempts to explain the predicament faced by Trillium (though it seems to express a more general commentary by the author on society itself). Cromarty recalls his time in college working for a motorcycle racing team: for the bikers to perform well, it was essential that they carried the least amount of load (or weight). Thus, the focus of the exercise was to get the best performance out of a stripped down motorcycle; he feels that the analogy is apt, since the city has to operate its public services with resources at the bare minimum.
However, Cromarty maintains that there is an essential difference between his motorcycle and the situation at Trillium.The city manager explains that the secret behind the motorcycle’s success was its engine, the key to its performance. Trillium’s budget, on the other hand, was preoccupied with services enhancing the security and comfort of life, like the fire and police departments; in Cromarty’s analogy this would be akin to placing more importance on the brakes or the seat of the bike. The engine, which he compares to the “quality of life” (11), is provided scant attention, making life in the city less fulfilling or healthy.
The Trillium motorcycle, thus, fails to perform because the obsession with basic services “[sucks] away all [the] resources…[along with] the things that actually add to quality of life, like the arts, exploration, spiritual growth” (11).Cromarty supplies an elegant analogy to describe the state of local public services and finance in the city. However, his views remain appealing only at the level of theory. City management and local administration – indeed, administration at all levels – require the use of an objective standard for setting goals and devising policies.
Such a standard may very well be flexible to accommodate changes in public life, but it cannot respond to a subjective basis of policy-making. Cromarty’s view is essentially normative because he discusses what he finds to be desirable. But, while he might find the quality of life to be desirable, others might favor security or convenience in its stead. In any public management system, safety is the highest concern; so, even if Cromarty’s ideas may appear attractive, the practical difficulties these would throw up makes it hard to support them.
It could be debated that the values professed by Cromarty are indeed indicative of a more fulfilling life. However, it must be reiterated that policies are never based on that which is debatable, but rather on things that are concrete. In the myriad pulls and pressures of life, the trade-off of “spiritual growth” for security is one that people readily accept.This trade-off is exemplified towards the end of the novel when the TFA and the Citizens for Good Planning combine to launch a public campaign calling for the recall of Mayor McTavish, Councilman Rosenberg and Councilman Arnold, and the termination of Ben Cromarty from his position as the City Manager.
These efforts were further bolstered by the TBLC’s tacit alliance and support for the proposed recalls and removal. Essentially, the TFA and TBLC’s public campaigns informed the general public of one particular perception of the Council’s (and City Manager’s) performance, while the legislators on their part acted on policy-making principles they perceived as sound.At its core, the positions of the public forums – the TFA, the TBLC and the like – and those of the local legislature throws up a debate between two forms of democratic action: direct democracy against representative democracy. In the former, the electorate takes it upon themselves to vote on particular measures and laws that they have forwarded.
Like the property tax measure (5-43) which was put on the ballot at the start of the novel, the demands for recall were similarly advanced by the voting public. Conversely, in a more representative format, the electorate votes for such people in whom they bestow confidence to make laws which would see popular support in any case. Direct democracy allows greater governmental control and encourages increased public participation in the political process. Representative democracy provides the advantage situating highly trained and informed individuals at the heart of the policy-making process, and legislators have the benefit of weighing every option before framing particular laws.
Of the two, the latter is more favorable, even though the former might generate visible results quickly. The fact remains that public campaigns which culminate in direct democracy-style voting are fueled by individual or group interests; in the case of Trillium, both the TFA and the TBLC have particular motives behind their positions: while the first is resisting a proposed redeployment of services, the second is looking to obstruct a large economic project in order to derive political leverage. Both of these outfits employ the device of sensationalism, by jumping on anything that would engender public sympathy. In addition, they skew relevant information to portray some of the legislative staff of the city in a poor light.
This ultimate outcome remains undesirable, and reflects the other side of the security-convenience trade-off discussed above. People respond to the “yes or no” nature of election-day lawmaking because it affords them the luxury of little investment in apprising themselves of the true facts relevant to every issue. However, direct democracy requires a much higher degree of engagement with and participation in the political process than other systems of governance.Such engagement and participation can only be delivered by legislators who are deeply associated with the policy-making process and comprehend the myriad pulls and pressures of societal living.
Though it was simple enough for the citizens of Trillium to vote on a “yes or no” basis on not only the performance of certain legislators but also some of their proposed policies, the Council members gave their recommendations for policy changes after months of deliberations, revisions and compromise. All along that process, they were keenly mindful of the central problem: lowering taxes without negating essential services. Representative democracy, thus, is not reactive but proactive. In a world were only a nominal proportion of any population finds the time and energy to directly engage with the political process, it offers the best means of governance through a popular framework.
The fundamental message of Playing with Fire, though, remains that whether we take care to realize it or not, our lives are affected by the choices we make and the environment in which we reside. Sometimes, the distinction between the public and the private blurs, and it is in these times that we must appreciate the complexities of social organization and accommodation. Every demand faces numerous counter-demands, making social life a veritable maze of claims by individuals and groups. We survive in this very framework and it id highly desirable that we educate ourselves about the same.
ReferencesLazenby, Scott. (2001). Playing with Fire. Lincoln, N.E.: Writers Club Press.
