City Hall and the Naysayer.

I was just re-reading this article (also linked in the previous post) on the City Hall location recommendation.

I've been critical of City Council candidate Jeff Weninger because of his firm criticism of the recommended location downtown - on the northeastern corner of Arizona Avenue and Chicago Street. As I've noted before, when Weninger criticizes the recommendation, but does not offer a better alternative, it strikes me as pretty unconstructive. But as I read the article, I was came away with even a deeper sense of chagrin with Weninger's position on this.

As the article notes:

...the first thing RNL did when it started this study was to meet individually with council members and ask them about goals and visions of a new City Hall. RNL met with four stakeholders - the Downtown Merchants Association, the Downtown Chandler Community Partnership, the Museum Advisory Board and the Chandler Historical Society. Four possible sites were soon winnowed down to two: the Chicago Street site and Site 7, on the east side of Arizona Avenue between Chandler Boulevard and Buffalo Street.

The alternate sites have been vetted thoroughly and dismissed because they have significant disadvantages. The recommended site is the result of a long, detailed process of qualified, informed consultants working with key city stakeholders. Indeed:

...a qualified consultant did a year's worth of due diligence and presented a well-thought-out recommendation.

And in the aftermath of all of this, candidate Weninger decides that the City Hall shouldn't be on the recommended site because of potential loss of tax revenue from business development at the site.

Now, accepting that what Weninger says is a fair concern, the idea that it hadn't been considered long before now by this process would be pretty naive. And if Weninger's view is that this concern HAS been considered, but that the other countervailing arguments are not legitimate would be pretty arrogant. So I'm drawn to wondering whether Weninger is being either naive about the process, arrogant as to his understanding's being better than the experts who have been involved, or if he's simply trying to take a bold, business-friendly stance so as to seem...well...I guess decisive, even if uninformed.

So I'm not sure any of the above possibilities fills me with confidence in his judgment. "Naive" is surely no good. "Arrogant" is even worse. And I'm darn sure we don't need any more "decisive, even if uninformed" politicians in office right now.

I'm trying to give him a bit of the benefit of the doubt and imagine how this could reflect well on him, but I confess to coming up short. Perhaps Weninger has some special inside information the rest of us aren't privy to, but he hasn't shared that with us, yet.

Hey, consultants aren't perfect. And, from my own experience, I know a manager really needs to be diligent to exercise his or her own discretion and not just abdicate responsibility to hired consultants. But my own philosophy - also from personal experience - is that when you hire an expert consulting firm to do a year-long study and they follow a diligent process, they solicit information from all key stakeholders, and they synthesize a recommendation out of their expertise and research and hard work, it should carry some significant weight. A lot more weight than a half-informed assertion by a local businessman bucking for a City Council position.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how the City Council comes down on the issue. Perhaps they'll agree with Weninger in his criticism of the recommendation...