Before the Yard Signs: Ask Why

Preservation and progress both require a clearly stated purpose

#Opinion • 7:00 a.m. Feb. 24, 2026

This month’s Metro Council meeting was primarily informational. The plans for the jail renovations are complete, and we are putting them out to bid.

We approved the county roads list and surplused Highway Department equipment, most of which was 25- to 30-plus years old. We passed the first reading of the Jackson Law Ordinance, which provides local controls for establishing new landfills rather than relying solely on state-level requirements. We also approved the Hazard Mitigation Plan, compiled by department heads and presented by Jason Deal. It is focused largely on infrastructure and equipment upgrades to reduce losses during catastrophes, with storm shelters currently the primary emphasis.

We were also given an update on the construction of the solar farm, the controls being implemented to address citizen concerns, and what is currently known from the TDEC site visit. I’ll note quickly that their presentation seemed largely informational, but it came across as smug. I’ve been told that I come across similarly when merely presenting information, so smugness may be in the eye of the beholder.

Trying to remain objective about this whole matter is no easy task. There’s the practical desolation of miles of forests where I squirrel hunted as a kid. That loss turns what has long felt like a peaceful demarcation between home and the rest of the world into a kind of hellscape. Then there’s the pollution of one of thousands of ubiquitous creeks strewn about our state, whose beauty is never diminished by their prevalence, and where, regardless of the season, children and dogs alike are eager to splash around.

Then there’s the fact that this is a corporation with a legal obligation to have no regard for the land and people around it, except to the extent that their betterment can be shown to benefit its shareholders. And yet, the people we see in front of us aren’t the board members or shareholders. They’re workers, often young men far from home, trying to do their jobs in a place where the public doesn’t want them and has no qualms about making that known.

I’ve heard the names people use – wealthy, evil, heartless, “corporate lackeys.” The irony is that those supposed villains file out of the meeting, climb into an early-2000s GMC crew cab, and drive away. I hope the company begins holding up its end of the construction and runoff deal and becomes an innocuous neighbor soon. In the meantime, I’d encourage anyone who believes they are witnessing environmental destruction to document it and report it to TDEC.

Why – and who says?

This brings me to the main point I want to make.

As election season ramps up, I hope we return to the foundation upon which our arguments are built. When someone says they want X outcome, or that we should do Y, I’d like for you to follow up with two questions. Any parent knows these questions are programmed into us, but over time, they get taught out of us: Why? And who says? Keep asking those questions until you reach the foundation upon which the argument rests. You’ll soon find that those two questions are the wind, rain, and floods to every house built upon sand. Every position not founded on the solid rock is eventually exposed as arbitrary. It’s a great exercise to employ on your own views, as well as on those vying to represent you.

When presented with options about whether to conserve something, first ask whether it is worth conserving. If, after the why-and-who-says questioning, you determine it is a principle founded on solid ground, especially if it carries a moral ought, then conserve the heck out of it regardless of what anyone says. If it’s an arbitrary preference, ask another question: Can you conserve it on your own, or will it require cooperation with others? If it requires cooperation, don’t use government as a tool to co-opt unwilling participants toward your end goal. You don’t have that right, and you are enslaving your neighbor against their will to your cause.

Stated plainly, Moore County is one of the most homogeneous counties in the state by most measures. If we can’t get on the same page as a group of people with so much in common, there is virtually no hope of doing it at scale. And if we care only about what benefits us, with little to no regard for whether it is just or how it impacts our neighbors, then we shouldn’t be shocked when the people we elect act the same way with our money: pet projects, paychecks, and pensions.

Conservatism for its own sake is a fruitless endeavor. I have always abhorred the answer to “why?” being “because that’s how it’s always been done.” Many times, it has been done that way because it is the best way. But it’s also common for a system to be preferred by the person or group who set it up that way. Often, there are better ways to accomplish a goal, but too many people are afraid to ask the simple question that gets the ball rolling.

Non-negotiable vs. Preference

Sometimes conservation is for the benefit of future generations. We don’t have brick or stone buildings here as old as those in the Northeast or Europe, but the principle is easy to grasp: It would be a gross misuse of the term progress to slap vinyl siding on a 300- to 500-year-old building during routine maintenance. Yes, you may need to replace failing components and use updated techniques. But the goal is defense against decay because the people maintaining it have decided the thing is worth preserving so their posterity can enjoy it.

And that’s the point: You don’t choose the tools, the materials, or the compromises until you know what you are trying to preserve, and why. Otherwise, “progress” becomes a slogan that justifies whatever the loudest person wants in the moment, and “conservatism” becomes a reflex that can’t explain itself.

So, before the yard signs multiply and the promises get cheaper, I’d ask every candidate, and every voter, to state the end plainly. What, exactly, are we trying to build here? What are we trying to conserve? What is non-negotiable, and what is preference? And by what standard are we calling something good, necessary, or “for the children?”

Once the end is clear, then we can talk about means like adults: roads, taxes, spending priorities, development, ordinances, and yes, how we steward land and water when outside money shows up with outside incentives. But if we cannot articulate the goal, we’ll keep arguing about methods as if they are virtues, and we’ll keep reaching for government as a shortcut to force cooperation toward ends we never justified.

If you want a simple starting place, keep asking: Why? And who says? If the answers collapse into “because I want it,” then at least be honest that it’s a preference, and don’t conscript your neighbor to pay for it. If the answers lead you back to bedrock, truth, duty, stewardship, and justice, then defend it, even when it’s unpopular, even when it costs you.

That’s how you preserve what’s worth preserving, and that’s how you make progress that isn’t just decay with a new label.