Dear Shanna……….

One of my hopes with this blog is, as much as possible, to use the site for media interviews and responses to reporting. So here itgoes with Shanna Flowers (shanna.flowers@roanoke.com) and her commentary in today’s Roanoke Times. I have emailed her requesting a response.

One of the more difficult parts of council life and media relations is I often completely agree with a reporter’s comments but they twist it so the perception is I am somehow forever on a different side. Shanna should know that I have visited the market building over the last week, attended the public input session and played a major role last year in getting council to reverse itself on the rankings of downtown capital priorities such that the Spanish Steps concept was pushed aside and the Market Building was put on top of the list. Since then work has been underway to secure a major renovation while at the same time performing some long over-due cosmetic improvements. And then we all know what happened nine days ago.

So- for the record, I completely agree with Shanna’s observations about the Market Building and what a jewel it is- absolutely an incredible and very important city asset. I am glad the city owns it and I am glad it is getting broad attention to bring it and it’s historic flair up to standards and with usage that will lead us many many years down the road.  All week, several council members and myself have been weighing next steps and how to quickly and efficiently do the building right, define the renovations, work and be fair with the vendors and utilize the input we have gotten from citizens as well as businesses and DRI in regards to usage. We all plan to have an open discussion on this subject Tuesday morning. I have been quoted many times that this building is the capital priority facing council well before this unfortunate emergency.

But Shanna and presumably others at the Times have decided to connect this issue to me and the amphitheatre? Does everyone at the Roanoke Times have “amphitheatre on the brain”- everything, every issue and anything I do seems to be always connected to the amphitheatre. The Roanoke Times continued for years to fuel the flames of the Victory Stadium debate and successfully helped drag it out over a decade so as to still (including today) discuss it and help promote a continued black eye for the city (I had thought this Victory Stadium debate was well over, but not according to the Roanoke Times).

For the record, the Market Building is a bigger and more urgent priority for the city than an amphitheatre. That much is clear and obvious. The Market Building- all three floors- is awesome, is authentic and has much opportunity and potential. It has not been maintained or managed well, its “usage” needs some revisions and all floors need to be utilized. It has an enormous quality of life vibe.

But that is about all the Market Building and Amphitheatre have in common. The amphitheatre is an entirely different project, on a different and slower track. This project has been in process well before my arrival at council and at each decision point has had at least four votes from council members in support of it.  I, like most council members, are active on many projects and are on many committees. There are many acute and chronic issues I have spent considerable hours on such as passenger rail service, storm water management, marketing and tourism just to name a few. One of the pleasures of being on council is the ability to work with many great and caring groups around many “pet projects”.

Over the last 10 years the city has focused on capital projects mostly involving infrastructure, parking, fire/ems, police and other “municipal” issues. Two years ago, council supported a plan to finally focus on Park and Rec initiatives and quality of life amenities. This often includes healthy and green initiatives. We approved two staggered bond packages each at $15 million for a total of $30 million over several years to follow some of the Park and Rec Master Plan. This plan can or may include important assets like: greenways, athletic fields, an amphitheatre, recreation center, an aquatic center, and a “bigger” William Fleming football field and track and field complex. This money cannot be used on other things such as libraries or the Market Building. Each of these amenities have a clear economic impact for our city.

Today the Roanoke Times mixed two important issues together in order to create false perceptions. They are two very different issues, with two different funding streams and need to be dealt with differently. Yes these are incredibly difficult financial times and city council with the professional advice from our finance department needs to navigate the next few months and years very carefully. Due to the two biggest capital projects in the history of Roanoke coming on line over these last few years (the two new high schools) we knew 2009 and 2010 would be difficult years. Now you add the current economy to the mix and it is even tougher. Some projects may need to be stopped, delayed or reconfigured. The article today implied that council should shelf many projects especially entertainment projects in order to focus on the Market Building. The city does this shelving all too often. I intend to take a broader and longer term view- we need to keep our city vital, competitive with similarly sized cities and grow our population. One building or asset doesn’t do that, it is the thought out synergy of several assets that will.

While I take my broad look, I do know one thing and I think Shanna agrees- the Market Building is first and should be tended to now.

A Strange Council Meeting

A lot of emails, calls and comments on this blog about the city council meeting last week (9-15-08). It was an interesting day to say the least! I recommend anyone that can, to get a tape of this meeting and watch it- watch a true tug of war between trying to make progress and trying to stop progress. Really an example of government inaction- fortunately though the end result continues to keep projects alive (more on this coming in a new post soon).

Now I know there are many definitions of progress, and I certainly understand there are many who disagree with me on my definition and my stance on some of the big issues facing our city. However, as mentioned all over this blog, my main stand and my main reason for running for council is to stop the trend of debating issues to death, where either no action occurs, or if action occurs, it is over-turned at the next election, or perhaps even worse, if action occurs the end product is significantly whittled down due to a prolonged debate such that the result has nothing to do with the original intent and ultimately the project is doomed for failure.

Win or lose on issues, I will not constantly fight to overturn clear decisions made be an informed council with public input and open debate.

I have sat on these comments about the meeting for a week- my first reaction may have been a little extreme and full of frustration.

I really cannot understand the approach of Mayor Bowers and Vice Mayor Lea and cannot answer the question as to why they did what they did.  When you look at any conceivable purpose behind their motions on Countryside and on the Amphitheatre it just makes no sense- other than a clear attempt to be political: to show their strength and a possible new majority on council. That has to be it- the issues didn’t seem to matter to them, the loss of money didn’t seem to matter to them, the fact the people they were listening to on the amphitheatre didn’t even like how they wrote their motion (community vs commercial amphitheatre- everyone wants a commercial amphitheatre- its the location that was at issue- perhaps they should listen better!) didn’t matter to them, the fact that they did not want to hear a soon to be finished and paid for intensive study on the amphitheatre didn’t matter, the fact that council had already decided to keep countryside a golf course and was planning to send out a request for long-term management of am 18 hole golf course didn’t matter, the fact that this came up quickly and was not an agenda item until late the week before didn’t matter, and the fact that they did not talk or return phone calls to many council members didn’t matter.

Yes I have been on a voting majority on council but when a controversial vote was coming, I called and asked to meet or talk with every council member whether or not I thought I had the votes. I felt it worth the time and the courtesy for them to understand my perspective and for me to understand their views on the issue. This happened several times over the last few years and every council member met or spoke with me except councilman Wishneff who never returned calls. The old thought of get to four votes and stop calling just does not sit well with me. I see the attempts on their part last week as “pay back”- “see how it feels, now we are the majority and we can overturn past progress.”

Win or lose, we need to work together, communicate together and hopefully show the world that we can make decisions and move on. As Mayor Bowers has said- “take a deep breath and move on”. Trust is a big issue- a lot of trust was lost at this council meeting. The purpose of our retreat in a week is to work on process, decision making on issues, rfp process, relations with administration, and moving forward for the sake of our citizens and the future of our city.  As seen on My Purpose page above, I plan to remain dedicated to moving this city forward in a progressive and informed manner and hope to work with the entire council over the next few years in order to do so.

My true hope is this was an odd bump in the process encouraged by uninformed back room rhetoric with the last campaign fresh in their minds- but is done, tried and won’t be repeated too soon.