I suggested that this process would have the appearence, if not the
reality, of a project that was a done deal. This would reinforce
the perception that the process for reaching the decision was closed.
The effect of such a meeting would be that of opening a package with a
ribbon wrapped around it as if the EDC & the Chamber were presenting
a gift to the citizens of Moscow.
Shelley suggested that there were two years worth of public hearings
at city hall that no one attended and that we couldn't force the
public to listen to what was being said.
Carole Helm, director of the EDC, said that the information discussed
at the meetings with Thompson was proprietary. She suggested that
public meetings could interfere with the negotiations for the property.
On the issue of proprietary information, Larry Hodge told me on Sunday that
the only reason he felt free to discuss the business park publicly is because
Gene Thompson accepted an open process for decision making.
On the other hand, Larry pointed out that the Indian Hill Trading Co.,
owners of the initially-negotiated site for the business park, did not accept
an open decision process. Thus only the minimum
public discussion took place. (Shades of Wal-Mart?)
This is the dilemma the EDC leadership face. To be open is to bring
the public along, but it may threaten the very project under discussion.
To be closed is to not bring the public along with the possibility of a backlash,
but the project itself is viable. What do you suggest?
a view from within,
Steve Cooke
Pam--
One of the things that struck me about the City Council meeting
on Nov 6 (which approved the Urban Renewal Agency) was the reaction to
your suggestion of including those who question the business park in the
discussion in the future.
Like the proverbial lead balloon. PLOP.
As in no response. or agreement. or whatever.
Of course, it's a very sensible idea, but I'm not holding my
breath waiting for its arrival.
BL