It’s the fourth quarter with almost five minutes left in the game. You’re five points down. Your team is starting to mesh after a shaky time. It’s fourth and 2, 14 yards from the goal.
Do you decide to take the easy three points, trust your defense to get the ball back, and put your team in position so that all they need is another field goal to win?
Or do you decide to take a chance and go for broke now?
Classic risk/reward time!
There’s some of that going on right now in the cityhood question. Let’s say you’re in Tucker and thinking that you can create enough argument and confusion that the whole city question will go away. Then maybe in a few years you can come back on your terms and do what you want. Well, maybe!
What can go wrong? Maybe the confusion you create just makes legislators fall back to a default party line. Then you lose everything you were arguing about; and a year later you lose Northlake Parkway and parts of Midvale by annexations. Then you might have the possibility of creating another Pine Lake or Clarkston.
On the other hand, maybe you can say “We may not get everything we want; what’s going to put is in the best possible situation for the future?” Getting most of what we want puts us in a great position for the future. What’s the most feasible outcome?
We all need to stop thinking about what the “best” possible outcome might be. We need to concentrate on WINNING. The only relevant question is: WHAT WILL SELL IN THE LEGISLATURE! What is the winning strategy?
Think about selling a complicated products or service when the customer would prefer that you go away. If you can convince the potential customer in one paragraph, you have a chance. If you have to waste any of your time explaining why you’re not doing the obvious thing, forget about it. No sale.
That’s where we are.