I have been pondering a question for several days. “If a relatively few proponents divide a basically foolish project into two equal parts are those parts then only half-foolish or do they each retain their original identity as completely foolish?” I can’t find a precedence in any math book and Google has let me down. The city proposes to split the Pt. Brown project into two phases separated by several years This appears to be the approved result of a very poorly advertised and ill-timed “study session” on the Pt. Brown debacle. In my mind a bad project split into two parts equals two bad projects with the added benefit of inflation.
If a legislative body really wants input they would be sure to advertise a meeting well in advance and time it to accommodate the most people. Holding a meeting about a topic which specifically affects the business community at 9 a.m. on a Tuesday during the busiest part of the season in a tourist town comprised mostly of small owner-operated businesses doesn’t seem prudent or intended to be accessible.
This project needs to be stopped in its tracks; it is so full of problems, it cannot be reasonably saved. The majority of people speaking to the council see that; only the cheerleaders cannot or will not. The public, upon whose property the project would occur, were given no chance to say “no.” The poll taken by the city was so flawed that the city itself changed the parameters mid-stream, although they combined the results of pre and post change. At no point has there been a discussion as to the problems created when through the loss of parking spaces the project would cause a number of businesses to be in violation of city ordinances and fire codes related to required number of parking spaces. Many businesses were required by the city to spend a lot of money to comply prior to receiving an occupancy permit. Would they then be forced to close? Or would the law be changed to accommodate the flavor of the month?
The project in its’ entirety seems to grow at about 1 million dollars a month, according to staff reports to the city council. Apparently there is no reason to believe that holding off on part of the project for several years could result in any cost increases! According to city staff the local grant match could well exceed 4 million dollars and short of the “build it they will come” gambit there is no credible data showing that any return on investment will ever be realized.
According to the administration, we have no money for road maintenance, no money to maintain other structures, no money to advertise, no money to mow all the medians, no money to enforce laws but committing to raise over 4 million from the same over-taxed maxed-out sources is a great idea. Watching the advance of a project with so many certain negatives and so few certain positives makes me feel like I am caught up in a an unshown episode of “Twilight Zone”.
It appears that only a few want this and they base their desires on credible data such as “I want this,” ”I support this,” “this is legacy stuff,” and other equally irrelevant statements. We hear about desire but not about need. Apparently the strongest voice for continuing is the consultant who wants more money! The same consultant who failed to contact most of the businesses involved prior to starting the design phase to see if there was any desire to proceed.
The consultant needs to be terminated, the project needs to be killed and provisions to pay back the monies wasted to date need to be made. Good money should not follow bad.
In its place I propose we return to the original concept, ie: fix some relatively minor drainage issues and create identifiable and contigious walking areas in the downtown area. That needs to be done and we need to budget for it. We might even have to pay for our own desires! OMG!!!
Perhaps if we had to pay for this ourselves we might hesitate to move forward in building something we don’t really want; just because someone else might pay for most of it is no reason to proceed!
We have gotten way out of whack chasing grants and rainbows and it is time to take a realistic approach to this issue. This potential project as well as all other needs and desires should be prioritized in next years budget and determination come as a result of much rational and factual discussion. As a community we can do this, all we need is leadership and desire.
Peter B. Jordan,
Ocean Shores
