I have written numerous editorials over the years since being editor of this publication, typically only when a situation occurs that compels me to no longer contain my opinion, but what I witnessed within the Aspermont City Government this week was the result of a monumental failure of your local media, and for that, I am compelled to extend my most sincere apology.
The city passed over a proposal that would clear decaying downtown buildings, clear lots, and beautify main street, and with tens of thousands of donated funds, could do at a fraction of the cost to local property owners. It was a proposal that — literally — dozens of government officials I spoke with said was one of the most unbelievable opportunities they had heard of and could only wish of something similar in their city.
Almost without fail they said they would approve the proposal in less than a heartbeat... almost. At least two officials were against it, and they both were seated on the deciding council, and with an excellently played game of politics, earned the swing vote with no resistance from the opposition.
I watched passively from the sidelines as councilmen climbed atop their soapbox. They shouted rhetoric of injustices and how they alone were the defenders of taxpayer rights. They wagged fingers, made accusatory assumptions, and asked pointed questions while simultaneously ignoring any portion of the answer that didn’t fit their narrative.
They used the public’s fear of losing property because their weeds got too high as a platform to gain support and promised they would be against any action that could result in such foreclosures. They filibustered on mistakes of years past and gave speeches about the inequity of government enforcement.
Are they wrong for doing this? Of course not. That’s politics, and the naysayers came across like rockstars of the game.
Despite earning the majority vote, the argument against the project was deeply flawed and would have been exposed through a serious discussion of all the facts and not only enough to support a single perspective. As a reporter of the news, I was fully aware of these yet un-presented facts, and I was certain other council members would break their silence and engage in those discussions... I was wrong.
As an observer, I wanted to hear from the other side of the discussion. I wanted to hear how the project was designed to offer assistance to the city and ease the cost to property owners. I wanted someone to point out how this project could work as a platform to bring citizens together for a common goal, one that could result in community celebrations doubling as fundraising opportunities.
While council members said they did not care to accept a promise of money with strings attached, no one called out the fact that this is exactly what the council does every time they accept a grant or other outside funding sources. They didn’t like being forced to have surveys done, but they did so to gain the $300 K to bore under the river and lay new water lines.
Unfortunately, others seated at the table with a vote and a voice sat through hours of one-sided conversations, answering the lengthy diatribes with resounding silence. With no perceived opposition and a willful omission of facts that might change minds, a vote against was simple to achieve.
While the meetings were emotionally bias and lacked completeness, you should have discovered those missing facts within the pages of this newspaper. You didn’t, and as its editor, I’m sorry I let you down.