So let me get this straight---Spokane County is going to give the City of Spokane some $7 million for a building just to tear it down? That’s just to buy the Downtown YMCA building using Conservation Futures money. Add hundreds of thousands dollars to actually demolish the building, kick in the million bucks in non-refundable money already spent by the Spokane Parks Board and toss in another half a million dollars or so for rents and maintenance and you’ve got a heck of a bailout---not to mention a big PR problem.
The City Council originally rejected using Conservation Futures money as a bad idea. Accepting the loot now could mean that the City would have no control over the property or a clear idea of how much it will really cost to return less than an acre of property to its native state. That’s because of several conditions the County has attached:
· The Parks Board is required to pay $100,000 a year to supplement rents of the Y building until it’s torn down in five years.
· The County keeps design approval for the property which sits in the City owned Riverfront Park.
· The City would be required to pay back a portion of the grant.
· The City is on the hook for the full amount if a future County Commission changes its mind about the CF funding.
Regardless of how you feel about using CF money the bigger issue is persuading folks that this is a good use of those funds as well as a good deal for taxpayers. First step would be to spend some money to determine what people think and what messages resonate with voters. If research shows there is little or no support then politely decline the County’s offer. Otherwise, a mini-political campaign complete with public meetings, media relations and voter contact efforts would have to be created and executed to educate people about the issue.
Who would be responsible for this effort? The Spokane Parks Board should be---it’s who created the need for a bailout to begin with. Will the Parks Board step up? Doubtful when you consider that the groups’ strategic thinking about this issue is summed up in two quotes by its vice-chairman: “We have no Plan B” and “We’re on auto pilot.”
Good luck City Council.
March 25, 2009
The City's Latest PR Problem
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Toby, thanks for the post and for sharing your clear-eyed views on this issue.
While you've listed some of the most egregious reasons for concern, there are more than legal, political and fiscal issues to be worried about - namely, that removing what little programmed activities remain in Riverfront Park is just plan bad urban design. More "natural space" in a park already suffering from a lack of internal, all-hours surveillance will not only make the park at night seem more dangerous, it will be more dangerous.
Not sure what our Parks Board was/is thinking, but I'm sure this move will undermine the public's faith and willingness and/or ability to underwrite future - and presumably wiser - parks investments.
What a mess!
Post a Comment