Lancaster, Pennsylvania
|
I take issue with Mr. Hawkes' statement that "Project critics are guilty, certainly." There are a few "project critics" who are ill-behaved, but most of us criticize the project because we really and truly want what is best for Lancaster, and we really and truly believe this project is not it. And we have solid reasons to believe so. This article is reprinted in full without permission for the purposes of discussion and review, as permitted by Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. *Of deaf ears, dumb strategy and blind faith* /Heat, not light Forum spurned/ Maybe if we ignore our critics, backers of the embattled convention center seem to think, they'll just go away. Maybe feisty citizens such as April Koppenhaver, Victor Capecce and Robert Field will stop asking good questions we should be able to answer, but don't. Maybe civic watchdogs such as Ron Harper Jr. will stop seeking records we probably should be making available to the public. Maybe County Commissioners Dick Shellenberger and Molly Henderson will overlook the significant anger among voters against the convention center and stop trying to kill the project. And maybe if we pretend maverick Convention Center Authority members Jack Craver, Laura Douglas and Deb Hall don't exist, they'll slink back into their holes. Then we'll be able to push through our plans -- oblivious to our failure to build, within a community we profess to love, a strong consensus of support for a publicly owned, $137.8 million hotel/convention center and its attendant risks to taxpayers. Ignore and conquer. What a dubious strategy. Rather than engage the critics in constructive dialogue, project supporters seem to want only to marginalize them. And to what effect? Well, the critics feel they're not being treated with respect. Because of this, what should be a disagreement over policy becomes personal, and a discussion about what's best for the community devolves into a battle of egos. For almost a year, finding a way to work together for the betterment of the community has gone out the window. Convention center partisans seem to want only to jab their opponents. Project critics are guilty, certainly. But when project backers act petty, they are their own worst enemy. They alienate the public and energize opponents. It's telling how Nevin Cooley of Penn Square Partners and David Hixson, authority executive director, haughtily dismissed an opponent in a recent letter to the editor. They characterized the critic as so "out of his depth" as to be like "a parking lot attendant commenting on the engineering of the garage in which he parks and retrieves vehicles." It was an example of big egos trying to cut another down to size. I suggest they save it for the playground. Then we had the spectacle of the four authority board members who support the project -- chairman Ted Darcus in particular -- choosing to dismiss the inquiries of the board's renegade members: Craver, Douglas and Hall. Darcus last month contemptuously asserted the authority doesn't "need new board members to tell us which direction to go and what we should do." Technically, Darcus is right. He speaks for the majority, which salutes whatever Hixson asks for. But, as a practical matter, Darcus is acting with arrogance. By treating the minority members as if they're irrelevant, the majority insults everyone in the community who shares the minority's concerns or who at least wants greater accountability and transparency. On Wednesday night, project supporters could have participated in a public forum hosted by Craver, Douglas and Hall. It was the supporters' chance to respond to criticism, refute inaccurate claims with verifiable facts, acknowledge mistakes, pledge to do better and explain why the convention center is a worthy project. But supporters boycotted the event. Only Mayor Rick Gray, a day after being sworn in, rose to the challenge. He delivered three messages. First, he acknowledged that if he had a choice in how to spend $130 million for revitalization, it probably wouldn't be used for a convention center. But a choice isn't available, he said, and something must be done to create jobs in the city. Second, he cut to the heart of the issue by challenging those who question the viability of a convention center, asking them if they are ready to put forward a nonhypothetical alternative. "What do you have on the table?" he asked. "Where is the money? And how are you going to do it?" Gray's final message was symbolic. By his presence, the new mayor granted the forum legitimacy. Link to original article: http://lookingatlancaster.blogspot.com/2006/01/local-newspaper-prints-truth-mostly.html |
For ideas or feedback about this site, please contact us at: Idea(AT)LancasterFirst.org