|
Lessons Abound for Asheville in Wake of Aborted High-Rise Proposal |
|
by Dr. Carl Mumpower
Op-Ed
Asheville Citizen-Times
February 7, 2004
Like
most members of Ashevilles City Council, I did not enjoy a strong
position for or against the recently withdrawn proposal for the Grove
Park Inn downtown project. I did, however, have a keen interest in the
process by which we sought to resolve this matter. The inns proposal
stimulated a remarkable parade of exaggerations, assumptions and
speculations that produced, at best, a cloudy picture of the realities
of the project. I value the opportunity to shine a little light on the
ins and outs and ups and downs of this controversial community
initiative.
Public Input
It
has been argued that the inn, Pack Square Conservancy and city staff
and council have been remiss in their respective considerations of
public input. The arguments for this position are not particularly
strong, and to the contrary, appear more devoted to vilifying the
developers and decision makers than reflecting the truth. City staff
and council procedures in this matter were more or less dictated by
state law. These laws provide for a reasonable process that balances
access, communication and time considerations. These guidelines may not
have been ideal, but they did provide for public input at key points
throughout the process. There seem to be some who believe that public
input is the same as public control–in a representative form of
government that power is better found in the voting booth.
Arguments Aagainst the Project
Those
opposing !
the proj
ect had legitimate concerns. With the information
available, it was difficult to develop a clear sense of scale and
symmetry of the building in the context of its proposed location.
Additionally, the impact on site lines, foot and vehicle traffic, and
the public space were hazy and would have remained so until a specific
plan was developed. Projects of this nature are sequential and
evolutionary–clarity can take time. A personal concern, regrettably
demonstrated, was that we may have invested a wealth of time, energy,
resources and community goodwill on a project that was not economically
feasible from the beginning.
Arguments Favoring the Project
There
were a number of strong arguments favoring the project. At the top of
my list was continuing our stunning history of dynamic and creative
development within our city core. Many of us appreciate the visions Mr.
Grove, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Ellington and others created in the 1920s. Why
would we want to stop now? The site in question had buildings in the
past, and all indications were that the final impact on green space
around Pack Square would be minimal. By adding millions of dollars of
development, we were creating secondary economic impact and new
property tax revenues that could have helped meet other community needs
- including paying for the infrastructure changes on Pack Square that
may now come out of city tax dollars. Like any development, changes
would have resulted, but if good minds had been allowed to do good
things, we had the potential to carry on a tradition of matchless
downtown development.
How We Do What We Do Is Important
Our
communitys League of Women Voters held a well-attended public forum on
the inns project. A case can be made that the carnival atmosphere,
lack of balanced representation on the panel and personal !
attacks
by
some of the participants (just what exactly is the constructive intent
behind hissing at our citys mayor?) limited the experience. I had
hoped that the effort would help us objectively weigh the pros and cons
of the project in a manner that would clarify, unite and resolve.
Something different happened that night, and I dont think our
community was improved by it. Unfortunately, this event reflects much
of the activity that has occurred around this issue. From a personal
perspective, the vilification, conjecture and hostility surrounding the
inns project consistently impaired constructive discovery of the
pluses and minuses that should have guided the process.
Where Do We Go From Here?
This
inn project is history. Lets hope that others will continue to look on
our downtown as a treasure of creative history and future opportunity.
As for our citys elected council, it was our initial position to avoid
buckling to anyone who sought to exert their personal preferences on
the deliberative process. Council should have been remiss in pandering
to the developers or the projects opponents over a process that had us
weighing the facts and making an informed vote in the best collective
interests of our community. Most recently, by a 4-3 vote, we did
permanently remove the possibility of high-rise development on the site
in question. Its a point of curiosity that this decision was made
without formal public input or subsequent hue and cry from those who
have heretofore advocated for such.
For the future, may I offer
a note of encouragement to those who will continue to explore the pros
and cons of projects in a fashion that brings us together, raises our
awareness and nudges us to a better place? How we resolve such matters
will ultimately prove to be every bit as important as when and what we
resolve. We are building a commun!
ity, and
its not just about where the
bricks and mortar go.
|
