Chief
08-30-2007, 07:32 AM
Columbian editorial writers
March 4, 2001; Page C10
The Vancouver City Council has made it clear in no uncertain terms that it does not want an election to decide whether to bring a special events center to downtown Vancouver. But the council is even shying away from a debate requested by some of the center's critics.
While The Columbian editorial board agrees that the special events center decision should not be a ballot question, it urges the city to grant critics of the proposal an opportunity to duke it out publicly. As soon as possible.
The city has spent a lot of time with Renaissance Resources Group, the company engaging in a private-public partnership with Vancouver's taxpayers, and with others interested in planting an events center downtown. It has not given near equal time to opponents. There are weekly council meetings in which members of the public can make comments, but there has not been a back-and-forth exchange in which city residents have had an equal share of agenda control.
Events center critic Larry Patella is the ringleader of an effort to have a debate at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Clark Public Utilities building on Fort Vancouver Way. He's reserved a conference room and sent out press releases and 400 fliers. He hopes someone representing the city's interest in and enthusiasm for the events center will show. Right now, that's doubtful.
While the council has been asked several times in the past month to debate this all-but-signed deal, they have not made any effort to help make a debate happen. As of late Friday, Patella had received two regrets and no other RSVPs. Both regrets came from councilors with scheduling conflicts. One listed other reasons as well, such as concerns over who will moderate the debate, who would develop the questions and how audience members would be picked to ask questions.
All those are side issues. First the city just needs to say "yes," it will have someone there to represent the deal. Then it can offer suggestions for the debate's details and help set the rules.
It is tempting to ignore one's harshest critics; just ask editorial writers. But harsh critics often provide far more information than do fans. A night of debate would benefit the final deal in the long run and allow the city to say it heard its opponents out.
Elizabeth Hovde,
for the editorial board
March 4, 2001; Page C10
The Vancouver City Council has made it clear in no uncertain terms that it does not want an election to decide whether to bring a special events center to downtown Vancouver. But the council is even shying away from a debate requested by some of the center's critics.
While The Columbian editorial board agrees that the special events center decision should not be a ballot question, it urges the city to grant critics of the proposal an opportunity to duke it out publicly. As soon as possible.
The city has spent a lot of time with Renaissance Resources Group, the company engaging in a private-public partnership with Vancouver's taxpayers, and with others interested in planting an events center downtown. It has not given near equal time to opponents. There are weekly council meetings in which members of the public can make comments, but there has not been a back-and-forth exchange in which city residents have had an equal share of agenda control.
Events center critic Larry Patella is the ringleader of an effort to have a debate at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Clark Public Utilities building on Fort Vancouver Way. He's reserved a conference room and sent out press releases and 400 fliers. He hopes someone representing the city's interest in and enthusiasm for the events center will show. Right now, that's doubtful.
While the council has been asked several times in the past month to debate this all-but-signed deal, they have not made any effort to help make a debate happen. As of late Friday, Patella had received two regrets and no other RSVPs. Both regrets came from councilors with scheduling conflicts. One listed other reasons as well, such as concerns over who will moderate the debate, who would develop the questions and how audience members would be picked to ask questions.
All those are side issues. First the city just needs to say "yes," it will have someone there to represent the deal. Then it can offer suggestions for the debate's details and help set the rules.
It is tempting to ignore one's harshest critics; just ask editorial writers. But harsh critics often provide far more information than do fans. A night of debate would benefit the final deal in the long run and allow the city to say it heard its opponents out.
Elizabeth Hovde,
for the editorial board