Newport council should scale back plans for city hall

I am writing in response to Mayor John Heffernan’s recent request in

the Daily Pilot for more public input on the proposed city hall

complex (“City Council needs to hear from the public on plans for

city hall,” Aug. 25).

First, let me suggest that he may be misreading the lack of public

comment at the most recent council meetings. These meetings have

focused on design and layout details, both of which are difficult and

unproductive matters for the layman, who is seeing them for the first

time, to publicly debate with the presenting architects.

I’m sure that much could have been made of the poor man’s Sydney

Opera House design, with it’s plastic skylights and tilt-up walls

shrouded in moonlight, but these are subjective points. Many of us

felt that debate on these matters would serve only to obscure more

fundamental issues.

At its meeting on May 10, the council heard the full range of

public response to the proposal. It was told by a number of people,

myself included, that this is the wrong project in the wrong place at

the wrong time, financed by the wrong method. Although I’m not

directly involved with it, the forthcoming initiative to require a

vote on indebtedness should certainly come as no surprise.

Remember, the city hall proposal came out of the blue as far as

residents were concerned.

The initial outreach effort was botched in a fashion that gave the

clear impression that this was a done-deal that the council was just

going to blow by the residents as a formality. The subsequent frantic

efforts to recover from this gaffe were embarrassing to watch. The

city hall/firehouse/parking structure was (and continues to be)

presented as a take-it-or-leave-it package when it’s obvious that

they are not necessarily related at all.

The fact that the 350-car parking structure followed so quickly

after the fiasco surrounding a similar structure proposed for 23rd

Street by Councilman Tod Ridgeway cast further suspicion on motive

and on the quality of analysis supporting the proposal.

You know the story on cost projections. The city has a

well-demonstrated inability to realistically budget, and then

successfully manage, capital projects according to fiscal plan.

Couple this with the obvious vote-avoidance ploy involved with the

certificates of participation, and you have a proposal that, in my

view, was dead on arrival.

Throughout the summer, my colleagues and I, representing Protect

Our Parks, have been presenting our “Window to the Bay” Marinapark

development proposal to various civic groups. In meetings with more

than a dozen community associations and other membership

organizations -- such as the American Legion, the Nautical Museum and

the Girl Scouts -- we have heard not one positive word in support of

the city hall proposal in its present form.

The issue invariably comes up and is usually discussed in derisive

terms, often with a good dose of frustration apparent. City Manager

Homer Bludau’s oft-repeated comments that “it won’t increase your

taxes” and that “we can always find another $3 or $4 million per year

in the operating budget to service the debt” are frequently quoted

with a cynical laugh.

The residents we’ve talked with seem keenly aware of the fiscal

burden this project will place on the city, as well as of the many

less glamorous but essential projects that are likely to go without

funds for years to come. The urgent need for (very expensive)

lower-bay dredging is frequently mentioned when we discuss our

“Windows” project.

Concern for the pressure that will inevitably be created to

increase the city’s revenue stream from any possible source is a

prime topic when we discuss parks.

In summary, the city hall and parking structure portions of this

project need to be halted and completely rethought before the city

digs itself into a huge hole. It’s time to forget about earlier

ill-conceived promises to stay on the same site or to save the ficus

trees. Fresh thinking is needed. After all, it’s a $100-million

commitment we’re talking about here.

Let’s put aside preconceptions and go for the minimum needed, not

the maximum possible. As the state’s published guidelines to

municipalities for handling financing leases and certificates of

participation say, “the concern here is whether the public wants its

tax dollars spent on a project, not whether the municipality needs or

can afford a project.”

Unfortunately, at this point I have to wonder if city management,

staff and consultants are capable or willing to rethink this project

with imagination and enthusiasm. They all have a substantial

emotional investment in the present proposal that could make it

difficult to shift gears creatively.

Perhaps a carefully selected and independently staffed citizen’s

committee, akin to the Military Base Closing Commission is necessary

for a credible and objective reassessment of need and the development

of recommendations for the future.

My sense is that if this project, in its present form, were put to

a vote today, its rejection would make the “No on L” results look

like a tight race.

That said, I commend the mayor for his willingness to encourage

further dialogue on this issue. It’s comforting to have someone with

intellectual integrity in charge.

* JOSEPH F. O’HORA is a resident of Balboa.