Should we fear the Carson City electorate?
Proponents and city officials fear the electorate's decision about City Center because when the record is examined, no impartial analysis can be produced justifying its necessity. Fact-based concerns have been raised by many, but intentionally ignored by city officials and proponents without careful analysis.
Interesting, too, four plus years of Advisory Committee meetings reflect no consideration of viable alternatives to City Center. There are at least five: 1) rework the existing library space; 2) re-consolidate with the struggling, underutilized State Library and Archives; 3) network all four local public libraries into one entity; 4) relocate (if justified) to one of the many vacant commercial buildings; and, 5) expand the existing city library (if justified in an era of e-books).
How can City Center advocates convincingly promote the project when they have not objectively researched alternatives or City Center's vulnerabilities before proposing a $75 million project (not $49 million) when 30 years of market-rate, construction loan interest payments are included?
Annual increases in water rates and landfill fees are to pay the public's portion of this project, along with stripping all $11 million from the redevelopment fund.
Nevada has an initiative process for a very specific purpose. When government doesn't represent the majority will of the people, the people can change laws and public policies at the ballot box.
Whether someone is for or against City Center, the community's collective wisdom should be consulted and embraced, not feared or dismissed. A clear indication from voters about their perceived benefit and willingness to pay for City Center is essential.