The City's Latest PR Problem

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.

Losing Control of the Debate

Big ideas are great---I love them. But most of the time they won’t go far unless the groundwork is properly laid. Here’s the latest example from Spokane’s City Hall: Water Use Restrictions.

Mayor Mary Verner says that folks ought to conserve water and among the better ways to do that is limit when people can sprinkle their lawns. Sounds reasonable when you consider all of the energy going toward preserving the aquifer and the Spokane River. But Spokane residents love their green lawns so any hint of watering restrictions creates more than just ripples across the pond.

Major policy initiatives such as water restrictions need a great deal of explanation, background information and good old-fashioned schmoozing in order to gain the necessary support among the voters as well as the decision makers---in this case the City Council. Critical audiences need to be identified, facts gathered, key messages developed and a robust PR and media plan created in order to mobilize support for tough issues. Moving forward without clear, concise and persuasive messages and strong reasons for making a change means running the risk of losing control of the debate---which has already happened. City Council members Bob Apple and Nancy McLaughlin have expressed their opposition and letters to the editor panning the idea have already been published. The only thing coming from the Mayor’s office is that the City will be exempt from watering restrictions.

Most people probably would not argue with Mayor Verner’s vision to conserve water; many would even support her idea to limit some water usage which makes this a winnable issue. But it’s going to take more than just good ideas, sincere beliefs and noble intentions to make it happen.