The River District – A Good Idea, Treated Badly

Julie Rubenstein

The Grants Pass River District plan and its recent fate – shelved for a later date is a dream that’s been harbored by the City for decades in long range plans – call them wish lists – duly filed at City Hall. There’s only so much a city can do to encourage certain kinds of development without the enthusiastic participation of property owners in the affected district.

The synergy wasn’t there until recently, when it got jump-started by the ambitious vision promoted by Brady Adams and Evergreen Bank back in 2006/07. Brady, with his charismatic leadership and the bank’s dollars to back up any local idea, got people talking excitedly again about a civic improvement of major magnitude, celebrating and thematically enhancing that physical feature which unites the whole community.

At first it looked like a sure winner, until people got into the nitty gritty details and realized the City would have to put up some cash, too, for the right of way improvements. Some Grants Pass residents don’t like the whole idea of the change, but there are always people who resist or distrust change, or private enterprise in general. They appear to be in the minority. Others who do support the concept object to a new and somewhat costly city program of improvements without having a chance to approve the expenditure in advance through an up-or-down vote. By the time the citizens’ initiative qualified for the ballot, the controversy and hysteria had grown to a fever pitch. From a public relations standpoint, the City had blown it.

Had Council members sensed the rising indignation of activist citizens, already wary of what’s perceived as a sometimes too-cozy relationship between development interests and the Council, they would have referred the measure to the ballot themselves. This would have done two things for them: first, to reassure voters that the Council IS responsive to the majority will of its constituents, and it would have avoided a citizen-driven initiative, which always stirs up dormant mistrust of City Hall anyway. The mood of voters who see their peers forcing City Hall to do what’s right, as opposed to responding to a call from City Hall for their voices to be heard, makes a world of difference in the outcome of a measure such as this. I think the measure had a good chance of passing had the City referred it to the ballot.

Instead, we see a cautionary tale of what happens to even the best intentions, even when you seem to have the all-important synergy and cooperation between the public and private sectors. Things can still go sideways through the unpredictable and chaotic political process. Things like arrogance (on both sides of the issue), personality conflicts, taking too much for granted, letting anger interfere with good decision-making, all can get in the way. Nothing is a done deal until it’s really done. Let’s hope the vision itself doesn’t die, and can be brought back one day in an orderly, good-government sort of way that values all points of view while still enjoying the visionary leadership generated by Adams et al.