News-Record.com

Why not raise the money from the voters themselves? Individuals can always donate funds. The end run through the City Council obviously frustrates, as you note, the expressed will of the public on the matter.

As I see it, the question is not whether we should have a Civil Rights Museum, but whether we will ever have one with the current clowns in charge. With the amount of money they've blown through so far, there are grounds for skepticism that another $1.5 mil will make any difference. As you say, "if it completes funding for the project we think there's strong justification for going forward," but that's an "if" of Biblical proportion.

Put me down as a Charlie Brown tired of trying to kick the football.

Doug, Is it not pretty obvious the voting public wants nothing more to do with the funding?

Will the voting public not see this as an affront to their will, and an act of arrogance by our elected officials?

Accomplishing this task in the way mentioned is ethically questionable.

In this case, the means are not justified by the means.

Consequentialism isn't valid on this particular subject.

Hmm....it should read "the means are not justified by the ends."

That's what I get for reversing the usual order of that particular bromide.

Bubba,

I think you're right that many taxpayers will see it that way.

But it's not a cut-and-dried issue in that regard. Voters also turned down bond proposals for War Memorial Auditorium at the coliseum and for War Memorial Stadium. Does that mean voters want absolutely nothing those facilities, or just not as much done as was proposed?

Short of putting this specific proposal up for a referendum or conducting a poll, it's impossible to intuit exactly what the "voters' will" is with respect to this proposal.

The vote in 2006 was close at 46-54, and the amount of the proposed bond issue was substantially higher at $5 million. A smaller bond might well have passed; then again, it might not have.

Beyond the cost, issues that discouraged voters were the escalating cost of the project and documented problems with the management of the project (a critical state audit came out just before the election). Those weaknesses have not been addressed. The current management will not even commit to a completion date if the $1.5 million is granted.

There just seems to be too much uncertainty with this project to commit these kinds of resources. It's a shame that the project has not been completed; as you write, it would be a great asset. It just doesn't seem like the project is ever going to get done with the current management team. Until they can demonstrate that they have overcome their own problems and have a firm plan for moving forward, the city should steer clear.

"Until they can demonstrate that they have overcome their own problems and have a firm plan for moving forward, the city should steer clear."

I think the voters sent that message twice already.

Do the deal or send it up for another referendum, City Council.

Then prepare to pay the REAL price of voter backlash.

Every candidate in November's election should be asked to state their position on this project in no uncertain terms.

Structure the funding in stages which incorporate meaningful metrics and milestones. Skip will die one day. This is a gesture that will live on and represents a cheap downpayment on a less divisive future. This Council has not missed an opportunity to make every possible gesture of racial conflict from every possible angle. In this quiet between-tantrums moment, it would be nice to see them go the other way. When my kids walk with their out-of-town in-laws past the completed museum one day, I'd like them to say "That's our Civil Rights Museum," not "That's their Civil Rights Museum."

"This is a gesture that will live on and represents a cheap downpayment on a less divisive future."

Hmmmm......

To say that that statement is a major stretch is probably generous.