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.

Another Kind of Bailout

Kudos to the Spokane City Council for two decisions that will enhance our quality of life and save us some money over the long haul. But deciding to regulate aggressive panhandling and recommending against using Conservation Futures money to buy the Downtown YMCA wasn’t done in a vacuum---lots of communication went into the effort to give Council members the right information to make informed and defensible decisions.

Providing law enforcement and business owners the tools to protect us from being harassed as we walk through our streets seems reasonable. But the challenge was for businesses, police and the Downtown Spokane Partnership to persuade Council members that the pedestrian interference ordinances were needed, reasonable and legal. Stakeholder meetings, lengthy discussions and transparent communication among constituents created a set of regulations that all Council members could support.

But those pushing to use $4.3 million of Conservation Futures money to buy the Downtown Y aren’t as adept. The Parks Board put a one million dollar non-refundable deposit on the building more than two years ago but did not follow up with any sort of communication effort to persuade the City to fork over the rest of the cash. So now with a late April deadline to close on the deal or lose the million dollars---and with no backup plan---the Parks Board hopes the Spokane County Commissioners bail them out. But the Council rejected a resolution supporting that idea---something about being stuck with a 20 year bond payment for an extremely expensive building the City doesn’t want and that’s going to be torn down in five years seems to be giving the Council heartburn. Those opposing the use of CF funds simply did a better job of communicating their side of the issue.

Developing effective messages and persuasive reasons for the City to take on this project could have prevented the Parks Board from looking foolish. Parks Board members still have time but as they squandered more than two years why should they suddenly change? My guess is they won’t.