In many, if not most, discussions over policy issues, the discussion revolves around a proposed solution. Proponents attempt to defend and justify their proposal, while opponents attack it. This is not a recipe for a healthy and constructive conversation. Indeed, it often leads to anger and hostility. Take proposals to ban or severely regulate short-term rentals (STRs) as an example.
In cities across Texas, local governments are considering (or have enacted) bans or severe restrictions on STRs. Proponents cite a number of points to justify such regulations, with the most common being: the prevalence of “party houses,” STRs are commercial enterprises operating in a residential area, and STRs change the character of a neighborhood. Opponents to STR regulations counter that such restrictions violate their right to property.
Interestingly, there is truth in all of these claims. However, both sides seldom acknowledge the truth spoken by the other side. Instead, they focus on benefits or harms of the proposed ordinance. Opponents of STR regulations would be better served and be more effective if they framed the issue properly.
Properly reframing an issue has two components: content and method. Or, what will be discussed and how it will be discussed.
The most effective discussions will focus on a shared value or goal. If both sides have a common value or goal, it is much easier to have a constructive conversation. The shared value or goal then becomes the standard by which we evaluate a policy proposal.
The method should include an examination of the full context: all of the alternatives, along with the pros and cons of each. Most policy proposals and alternatives have some good aspects and some bad aspects. To ignore the good or the bad is intellectually dishonest.
This approach keeps the discussion focused. Too often, the conversation jumps from point to point with nothing being resolved. And this occurs because the conversation has been framed by default. There has been no explicit agreement as to what will be discussed or how it will be discussed. And so, anything and everything can be included.
In the next post, we will examine how defenders of STRs can use reframing to be more persuasive.