City Council, Position #2
Non-partisan. Independent.
Next City Council Meeting is May 22, 2025
Working hard to support local businesses!
An advocate for airport issues!
In 2008 the City of Des Moines hired the UW School of Architecture 'Storefront Studio' to do a 're-imagining' of Des Moines. (Actually, we did this again in 2011 witha WayFinding project.) Here is a complete copy of their great work plus some explainers on some of the key ideas and images. If you have any interest in Marina Redevelopment, this is a must-read....
Previous Articles
The UW CEP Marina District Wayfinding Project is a wonderful bit of history I hope you'll find useful and interesting. It's from the January 12, 2012 City Council Packet which is one of the more significant Marina-related meetings in our history. The document was a senior-class project for the UW School of Community Environment Planning which goes over their design ideas for the downtown and the Marina. It's only about twenty pages and very readable. I urge you to look at it because it demonstrates some very important ideas we should be thinking about today.
First CCM of the year starts with Executive Session and presentation on Redondo. All kinds of new articles on the Marina... our history... our competitors....
A list of key events in the history of the Des Moines Marina beginning with 2007 Master Plan, which laid out the broad outlines of the current waterside and landside options. Water side topics include removing the Sling launch, passenger ferry service, dock and seawall financing. Land side topics include segmenting the floor into separate funds, public vs. commercial uses, connection with 223rd, paid parking, boat storage, retail and restaurants....
This is a shameless plug for a free program called Google Earth. People with an interest in the Marina often mention Poulsbo, Edmonds, Point Ruston, Tacoma, Kirkland, and other spots, as models we could use for our economic development. I've used all these Marinas, so I've seen them from both 'land and sea'. But I'm not sure most people have. One thing I know for sure--they're all very different from Des Moines. I tried and couldn't find a single image that adequately captures any of these places. There's simply too much 'there' there. That's why having a way to visualise places (as I've talked about with a Virtual Marina Tour here) is so valuable....
No, it's not Des Moines. This image is from the Seattle Times Pictures of the Year 2022. So. What. This is my fave image of the year. I'll tell ya why and I'll tell ya why I'm tellin' ya why. My overview of how things went here in 2022, our biggest challenges, and the legislation I hope to work on for you in 2023. Big emphasis on economic development and the airport--both of which we've been getting wrong since I've lived here. ...
At this meeting, the council received, what I considered at the time, to be a fairly sensible plan for dock replacement. It kept the dock finances and the seawall separate and did not pretend to address big 'plans'. The City got yelled at because one method of financing depended heavily on raising moorage rates and raising fuel costs, both of which had always been below market rate. But that had always been intentional; the Marina had been intended as a public marina. What the boat owners failed to acknowledge at the time was that by now most people paying for moorage did not live in Des Moines....
For me 2013 is the most useful and fascinating year in recent DM history. And if I could, I would insist that every current member of the Council and all future candidates listen to this stuff (especially the April 6, ‘all options on the table’ meeting) and take notes.
As you’ve perhaps heard many times, in 2013 the City was absolutely tanking. Among the first words spoken by Mayor Kaplan at the April 6 Retreat is that the City was running a $2,000,000 annual deficit.
In addition to Mayor Kaplan, the Council consists of Matt Pina, Carmen Scott, Melissa Musser and Bob Sheckler. Dan Caldwell is ill and will soon resign–being replaced by appointee Jeremy Nutting.
And you can trust me on this: some of the Council got along no better then as now. They have dramatically different views on various issues. And yet? If you watch any bit of these meetings, people seem mighty friendly. There is actual discussion.
April 4, 2013 Study Session Packet
On Thursday April 4, the Council held a typical Study Session to discuss regular stuff (actually the long term plan for Pacific Ridge which is very important and City Manager Piasecki’s attempt to improve meeting agenda items), and then prepare for another meeting–a special Retreat at the Senior Center two days later on April 6.
April 06, 2013 City Council Retreat Minutes
This was referred to as “the all options on the table” meeting. This is, hands down, the most informative meeting I’ve ever heard. It explains pretty much everything about where we were, how we compare with other cities, various possibilities and basically how we got to today. It’s over three hours, but it is fast-paced and anything but boring because it is so action-packed. And you quickly realise that the participants were completely aware of the stakes involved.
It’s interesting that they chose to hold such an important planning meeting–with lots of graphs and charts, in a place with poor audio, no video, and lots of airplane noise, at 9AM on a Saturday morning.
There were two sets of talking points, ‘Radical’ and ‘Traditional’.
You can read the list for yourself in those minutes, but to give you a sense of the ‘radical ideas’, one was to move City Hall down to the Marina and then open up 11th Ave for commercial development. Another was to outsource the police to King County (as Burien, Normandy Park and SeaTac all do, by the way.). Another was to un-incorporate various sections of the city (not the whole town!) which had previous been annexed, but with the experience of time, had proven to be obvious economic losers. All options really were on the table and one can only applaud the Council for having the courage to discuss these things in public.
But some of the non-radical ideas were not exactly mild salsa either. They include grande lower-level staff cuts totalling over $1,000,000 per annum. And Economic Development Director? Assistant City Manager? Gone. Reduce our reliance on consultants. Combine various departments. Go ‘paperless’. And, end most of the ‘citizen advisory groups’, including the public planning commission.
One thing that stands out to me is the annoyance of a couple of CMs (led by Pina) that the City Manager has all these ideas on the table, but has no numbers to indicate the potential benefits for each. How can they possibly choose without more information!? Sheckler points out that there will be a political cost, so they have to know what they are getting themselves into.
City Manager Piasecki calmly points out that the point of the meeting is to ask the Council to choose which options to research. Each of these bold options will take a ton of research to run the numbers and they can’t possibly study them all. So, how about if the Council whittles down the obvious non-starters, elevate the ones that have obvious appeal and then go from there. And as the conversation progresses, it’s clear why he is saying that. Although various CMs say they are interested in the numbers, they have obvious biases for or against various ideas–regardless of how much money they might raise or save.
In June, the City Manager presents a report and some recommendations on implementing the ideas discussed at the April 6, 2013. There is also a big presentation on IT and the whole ‘going paperless’ thing. (For the first time councilmembers will be getting their own computers)
Update from April 4 Study Session-June 06, 2013 City Council Packet
August 3, 2013 Budget Retreat Packet
At the annual Budget Retreat, the ideas from April 6 were re-visited. None of the ‘radical ideas’ went anywhere, but it did end the Public Planning Agency in a 5-1 vote (Carmen Scott being the lone ‘no’.) The main sentiment being expressed by Sheckler, “We can always bring it back any time we want to.”
The Council actually doubled-down on the use of consultants, a practice that has only increased over time. But some of the traditional ideas definitely went somewhere.
As they say, “history is written by the winners.” The story told by the current majority is that they “saved the city”, which implies a certain “all or nothing” thinking:
As those meetings demonstrate, neither of these assertions are particularly accurate.
So even as those people sat there one Saturday morning in April of 2013, as City Manager Matthias is fond of saying, ‘macro-economic forces’ were already starting to build.
It just so happened that the recovery from ‘The Great Recession’ was the slowest in modern American history. So it took almost eight years for Des Moines to reap the benefits of that recovery.
We had a couple of years of relatively good performance, and then COVID hit.
And one could say the same thing about the previous decade. There was a recovery after 9/11, the City seemed on an upwarded trajectory with absolutely booming home sales and a much healthier downtown than people seem to remember now and then… 2008’s Great Recession.
As the Finance Director points out at the April 6 Retreat, Des Moines seems to go through these ‘waves’ every so often. Councilmember Carmen Scott comments that the City should stop spending so much and (once and for all) commit to building a healthy reserve.
But it’s also worth remembering that Scott, one of the most conservative members of a conservative City Council, was also the driving force behind the Beach Park restoration. She kept pushing to spend a lot of money to preserve those ‘old buildings’, at a time when the City was hemorrhaging cash. (Which is why she was also the lone vote for retaining the public planning commission.) She had a soft spot for historic preservation.
I’m not picking on Councilmember Scott, not at all. Though she and I would have disagreed on many things, I too have a soft spot for historic preservation and I’m glad she pushed for something that seemed so extravagant at the time because I know it was the right thing to do long term.
But on the other hand, if no one has the will to say ‘no’, you should expect to start tanking.
If you know that Des Moines is cyclical, you can remain calm and do something cool like the Beach Park and not turn it into a hair on fire deal. It’s actually quite hard for a city to go out of business. We can simply cut services and raise taxes. It sucks, and it’s not healthy to always be focusing on ‘now’ but we can (and do) do it.
But my takeaway from that year is mixed.
On the one hand, those meetings have the dynamic I think we should want from our government. The staff are saying: lead. The councilmembers are not all that far apart ideologically and they do seem willing to work together to come to some kind of consensus.
The Council makes some choices, but ultimately cannot seem to land on any vision, which was kinda the point of these meetings–finding a new direction leading to long term success.
I would argue that restoring the Beach Park, finishing the Des Moines Creek Trail, Carmen Scott’s passion, things that helped the city tank, were also among the few truly visionary items accomplished in that era because although they were part of the financial pain, they are things that everyone agrees are great and will continue to be great forever. But they were never part of some holistic ‘vision’.
And I would also note that the Council was willing to dump all the Citizen stuff because of low participation rates. It was a Catch-22. Why have all those ‘citizen groups’ if no one shows up?
But it’s also notable that the Council did have that most important of meetings at a time and place which almost guaranteed poor public enagement–a bit like the September 27, 2022 Marina Town Hall also held at the Senior Center.
It’s easy to blame the public for checking out, but that absolves government from any responsibility for bringing people together. A City is a corporation. In most corporations, whether for profit or non-profit, if customers are losing interest, one has a strong motivator to regain it. But a municipal corporation like Des Moines can keep cranking whether the public is there or not; and that creates all kinds of incentives to avoid keeping your customers in the game.
The one visionary thing I wish the council of 2013 had considered was to do something real to break that cycle of declining public engagement. Rather than save some short-term money and dump all that ‘citizen’ jazz, I think it would have been better to spend a few bucks and try to revive them. Maybe it woulda worked, maybe not. But if the Council could, itself, not reach consensus on a grand vision, it may not have been the worst idea in the world, especially with the onset of social media, to let the public have a whack at it.
It may not only be ‘good hygiene’ to encourage the public to show up, it may also be what we need to develop the compelling ‘vision’ people have talked about for so many decades.
There seems to be a ton of confusion about any number of aspects of the Marina proposals. This article addresses what is arguably the central bit of real estate around which everything else revolves: 223rd Street.
The original idea for Marina Redevelopment was to have a ‘Marina Steps’ to allow pedestrians to walk down from 223rd to the Marina floor. Those ‘steps’ would be book-ended by two construction projects. Parcel A to the north side and an Adaptive Purpose Building to the south. All the activity revolves around those Marina Steps.
In November of 2021 the Council voted to give the City Manager the authority to negotiate with one such developer to build a ’boutique hotel’ on Parcel A.
OK, here’s the tricky part. Since the Marina Steps don’t exist, we have to strap on our James Bond Thunderball Jet Pack and fly up to the top of the hillside. Weeeeeeee…. 😀Whew, we made it! (Sorry for the Dad Joke. 😀 ) Nevertheless, we’re now at Overlook I, looking west–aka the foot of 223rd Street.
The ‘steps’ are below you, underneath South Shores Condos. On the Marina floor to the left of the ‘steps’ (green) is the Adaptive Purpose Building, which extends south to the edge of CSR Marina ( about 225th-ish.
And to the right (orange) is Parcel A, which nestles under the Cliffs condos on 5th Ave above. The northern boundary being the Mariner Condos.
Again, Parcel A is where the original ’boutique hotel’ was going to be located, but as of September 27, 2022 is being reconsidered as a parking garage. The point being that both the north parking lot and both sides of the Marina Steps (Parcel A and the Adaptive Purpose Building) are large parcels of public land (aka ‘The Marina Floor) that the City is considering selling off to private developers.
One final note: Since the Adapti
ve Purpose Building is being considered as a permanent home for SR3, that puts that southern parcel of land back in play. But for what? The City has not discussed any plans. But the City spent a considerable amount of money helping with the buildout (running utilities to the site). And since the parcel has already been leased out once, it is logical to assume it will also be on the table for private development.
I keep putting the word steps in ‘air quotes’ because the Marina Steps Project isn’t really a full set of ‘steps’. The City calls it ‘Marina Steps’ because the current idea was floated by our original consultant, who also worked on the Harbor Steps in Seattle down the road from the Seattle Art Museum–which is a series of steps.
But the City’s proposal would actually need to be some form of gently sloped, wind-y walking path extending from 223rd down to the Marina floor. And my hope would be that it not only be ADA-compliant, but ADA-friendly.
I keep saying ‘down’, but to my mind it’s actually more important that this ‘path’ or ‘ramp’ or whatever you want to call it, be easy to get up to 223rd. The Harbor Steps have blocks to make it easy to get up to 1st Ave. But we do not. A key goal of Marina Redevelopment is to drive tourism up to Marine View Drive. So, it better not be an aerobic workout, that’s all I gotta say. 😀
This is the only other available drawing that gives one any sense of what that might be like. But I hasten to add that it’s several years old, there are many options, and the whole thing is now rendered soumewhat moot with the new (September 27, 2022) proposal.
But see that fuzzy building just to the north of the wind-y path (…er… ‘steps’)? That’s was the only rendering of what a ‘Parcel A’ boutique hotel might have been like. And you can just make out a hazy windowed building above the tents–that would be now be the Adaptive Purpose Building.
Let’s start walking backwards up 223rd. You’re heading east but still looking west. Ignore the stares. 🙂
Anyhoo, alongside that path would be some sort of water feature which is sometimes referred to as a ‘bioswale’ or an ‘urban creek’. But basically it’s just exposing the bajillion gallons of storm water which already flow under 223rd Street and out to Puget Sound. (See the round fountain/pool thing just north of the Harbormaster’s House? That one possibility for the outfall.)
But ‘bioswale’ is not some futuristic ‘tech’. It simply means making a culvert with rocks and plants in attractive manner (hence ‘urban creek’). The rocks and plants filter the water, which a typical storm pipe does not.
I’m not saying it’s not a good idea; it’s fine. But it’s just not some big ‘green’ breakthrough. We already do that (albeit in a less fashionable way) in various spots of the City–like this new retention pond along 216th Street. In fact, if you’ve ever seen any retention pond or a culvert with rocks and plants? Same concept: It’s a conscious design to let nature filter the water in the most efficient way possible. 🙂 But the challenges of making an outfall that large into something aesthetically pleasing, safe and cost-effective may not be trivial. Which is why we just got a $300,000 grant from the State to study the idea. It’ll take a few years just to work out the engineering.
Like my colleagues, I thought the basic idea of a Marina Steps was a fine idea. Unlike my colleagues, I thought that the whole Parcel A negotiation was a terrible idea from the jump.
In my opinion, until we understand the basic engineering of the ‘urban creek’ and the wind-y trail (…er… ‘steps’) we have no business moving forward on anything else in that area. The Steps are the pivot point for the entire Marina.
But I couldn’t figure out why the rest of the community wasn’t as upset as I was about Parcel A (ie. ’boutique hotel’.)
Regardless, if you are not thrilled about having a hotel in the north parking lot, you should also find the Parcel A proposal equally unpleasant. Both proposals block just as many views and obstruct just as much open space. And both would give up control of a huge chunk of the City’s most precious assets for a very small amount of ongoing revenue–all for the promise of someday attracting more revenue to the City. The only difference between Parcel A hotel and North Parking lot hotel? Where the ‘boxes’ are located.
The question you should ask about every one of these projects: What is the public benefit? I supported the Marina Steps because making the Marina more accessible is a no-brainer. Everyone benefits.
But if any of the private development ideas are really huge economic drivers, the City should be able to submit evidence to support those claims. The City went so far as to do a study of the economic benefits of dock replacement. But it has done nothing to prove the long-term economic benefits of any aspect of these business-driven projects.
The Community Meeting on September 27, 2022 changed my thinking. The City Manager and Mayor, in a totally brazen move simply announced that the hotel would be sited in the North Parking Lot. Why? One reason that was given was, listen to the recording I made for yourself, the developer likes it better.
Why should a developer build a hotel next to a water feature and wind-y paths when those features might not be ready for many years? Far easier to build a free-standing unit in the middle of a parking lot.
This willingness to skirt the proper Council procedures has now made me (and should make you) skeptical of everything–including the 223rd Steps itself. Because notice that Parcel A is still in play–it’s just been turned into a parking garage (to make up for the spaces lost in the north parking lot.)
Frankly, my main concern is not the hotel in the north parking lot. I believe you, the public, are sufficiently outraged to handle that. My concern is that the City will agree to drop that idea, you’ll declare victory and go home. And then? Something else happens.
This is a long game. Just the engineering study on the bioswale thingy may take several years.
As I said, the Parcel A idea of 202` was/is just as bad as the north parking lot idea of 2022. The only difference was (and is) the amount of public awareness.
For 2023, let’s try something different: a transparent, community-driven plan.
Get get that 3rd COVID Booster (the new ‘bivalent’ model.) Now. Deaths are slowly rising. Again, again, it takes about a month to achieve full efficacy. They’re doing walk-ins now pretty much everywhere. 🙂
Nothing! 😀 Please fill in the cold, empty days leading up to the joy of Christmas by giving me a call or having a chat. (206) 878-0578
OK… I do have this to keep me warm. 🙂
MESSI AND ARGENTINA LIFT THE 2022 FIFA WORLD CUP TROPHY 🏆🇦🇷 pic.twitter.com/ykYsPchLkX
— FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) December 18, 2022
Monday: There have been three Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission (CACC) Workshops and the big complaint was that same ol’ same ol’ public outreach. The organiser was amazingly polite and patient and supportive, but he also made something clear to people who feel ‘blindsided’. They have not been blindsided.
The fact is that neither Thurston or Pierce County have been exactly ‘raising the alarm’. And neither has South King County on behalf of Enumclaw. Frankly, each City and County also has an obligation to inform/educate their public, rather than wait for a report to find out that they are in the running.
We have exactly the same obligations regarding the SAMP. Whether there is a second airport or not is irrelevant to Des Moines because the SAMP is coming here in 2027. And so far? We’ve done nothing.
On the other hand the people who might be affected by a second airport have 20-25 years to mount a legal defense.
My main complaint with the CACC is that it does nothing for Des Moines. There has been a lot of talk about making that new airport ‘greener’, ‘quieter’, ‘less polluting’, ‘friendlier to the community’.
All that sounds wonderful. So… we should insist that if everyone wants a second airport so much? They should also apply those same improvements to Sea-Tac Airport now. It would be immoral to make a ‘healthier’ second airport, even as Sea-Tac continues in exactly the opposite direction..
Tuesday: Port of Seattle Commission Meeting (Agenda) The SAMP keeps getting pushed down the road. Also, the International Arrivals Facility is now going to be subject to some penalties for not meeting various compliance deadlines. This will sound snarky, but this is often the case with Port construction projects that come in “on time and on budget!” You just have to wait a few months for the litigation. 😀 Of course, one has to sound optimistic, but if I could whisper one thing in every Port Commissioner’s ear it would, “humility.” The Port has a history of scandal because it is one of the last bastions of real ‘capitalism’.
Tuesday: MRSC Seminar on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) aka ‘mother-in-law apartments’. I’ve taken a good deal of continuing education classes for this gig and I have to say, this was the best training I’ve been to thus far. There are a lot of opportunities for improving our ADU Code. The big takeaway? An ADU is not a ‘small building’, it’s a small house. It much more expensive and difficult to permit than many people think going in because it requires all the services of a ‘real’ house! One great idea, I heard was Pre-approved Plans. For example, Leavenworth has four ready to go (and very nice) plans that you can purchase for $1,200. (That’s a steal over hiring an architect.) And when you do, you are guaranteed a fast-track permitting process that can take as little as two weeks. We have lots of homes with enough land for an ADU and we should make it as easy as possible for home owners to get more out of their property and provide more housing options.
Friday: South King County Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) (Agenda) The group voted to fund their first two projects (in Burien.)
Saturday: 11AM-3PM Big Thank You to North Hill Espresso (and SANTA!) for sponsoring COVID Boosters through King County Community Health Access Program (CHAP.). They offer -free- Orca Lift cards, health insurance, and baby/child dental services. Go to KingCounty.gov/Outreach and look for CHAP.
And here is a table I whacked together showing those scores, with overall and by category averages.
| LEADERSHIP | BUDGET | COMMUNICATION | OVERALL | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning And Management | Supervision And Delegation | Forges Compromises | Hiring | Leadership | Ethical | Operational Efficiency | Completion Of Prior Objectives | Risk Management | Job Knowledge | (Avg) | Financial Management | Analytical | (Avg) | With Council | With Public | Credits Council | Accepts Direction | Sensitivity | Honest, Fair | (Avg) | (Avg) | |
| Mahoney | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3.9 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3.5 | 3.8 |
| Harris | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Buxton | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.9 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3.4 | 3.8 | |
| Achziger | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.8 | |||||
| Pennington | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Nutting | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3.2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3.3 | 3.4 |
| Steinmetz | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3.3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2.2 | 3.1 |
| (Avg) | 3 | 3.6 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3 | 2.4 | 2 | 3 | 2.4 | 2 | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.9 |
The averages are a bit weird because more than one of us left various questions blank or N/A. Frankly, it’s impossible for us to honestly evaluate several of the categories due to the separation between the Council and the staff. It’s not like we have opportunities to see Mr. Matthias’ management on a daily basis. And for that reason (and more), I strongly urge the public to read the Council’s comments as I do not believe that these 18 numbers accurately represent how each of us feel things are going.
On our Council, the Mayor arbitrarily sets the agenda for these meetings and the format of this review. This is not specified in our Rules of Procedure. And in my opinion that is one of several ‘authorities’ the Mayor has taken on which should change. As with everything else, one can’t really hold the Mayor solely responsible for this since none of my colleagues seem to object.
In previous years, we would receive each other’s notes in advance. This year we did not. So much for discussion.
I’ve never argued about Mr. Matthias’ employment contract based on salary. I’ve argued based on performance, which is another thing this system doesn’t take into account.
We don’t evaluate our situation objectively to performance metrics in comparable cities. And we don’t evaluate our situation objectively based on our own performance goals like any other corporation.
At the end of the day, we can all cherry pick. And we do.
But that is not meant as a slag against Mr. Matthias. I’d say the same thing with any City Manager.
My low score is based (mostly) on bad attitude and bad access to information. As as I said, a lot of the questions none of us can answer because we can have no idea of the internal workings of the corporation. (We were offered a single 15 minute meeting with staff next month. Fifteen minutes. Once a year.)
I can, however, do those comparisons with other cities–and with our own city and the past. It’s harder than it should be, but I can do that.
But when you hear me complain about anything, there will always be independent and objective research behind it.
But most CMs cannot do that much work. Most CMs have day jobs and families and won’t have the time or the background expertise. They’ll have to take what they see and hear at face value. And that is what I hope to change.
In closing the year, I want to remind readers of something that should be obvious. When you hear “the State of the Union” from the President, you’re getting their point of view. It’s not a lie, but it’s also not an objective assessment of how the Country is doing. A city is no different. Every message you will hear from the City (and city) comes with a POV. It’s true–and the accomplishments are real, but it’s also not the whole truth. It’s a press release.
Part of the City Council’s job is to promote the City. But part of it is also to question that message.
When people talk about “how the city is doing” I want to have objective ways for residents to decide one way or the other.