Mahler’s comments, as reported here, don’t seem to demonstrate open-mindedness about the two proposals in question. Rather, the fact that he referenced concerns about management of park space as two of his three reasons for opposing reconsideration of the proposals demonstrates an assuming mindset if not prejudice. Also, as the Chronicle noted, two people with direct knowledge of parks operations in the city were in the room. Mahler apparently chose not to ask for their opinion on his maintenance and security concerns. (I understand that his late arrival might have precluded questions at that point in the meeting.) I hope he’s able to follow through on his intention to be more open minded during the interview process.

Splitt, to his credit, did ask a question of Miller and Offen. Interesting that his comment that neither of the proposals showed possibility of financial return was countered by their response. What’s not clear is whether he had been making an assumption similar to Mahler’s or if his comment was based on an interpretation of the content of the proposals.

Rapundalo’s statements are also interesting. On the one hand he considers this a second chance for the two proposals (as opposed to a first chance, as some might argue.) On the other he demonstrates a desire to compare apples to apples across proposals.

This is the nature of this sort of process. It’s easy for me to sit here with the luxury(?) of time to examine and analyze the proceedings and the participation of others. The truth is that they’re doing the work (which is a considerable time commitment), and I appreciate it. The challenge for us all as members of the same community is to be patient with each other as we all do our best — and still stumble and contradict ourselves at times. Taking a little more time (it may be a necessity rather than a luxury) and asking for a little more feedback can help, as can pointing out the contradictions when we see them (as I hope I’ve succeeded in doing without animosity.) And certainly, being open to reconsideration, as council and the committee’s chair and its members all appear willing to do, is in the best interest of the community.

One last observation: The library and AATA were asked to join in the interview process but other neighbors (e.g., Earthen Jar, Seva, the UM Credit Union) were not. What do you all think about that?

If speculative development is not desired, why were the conference center proposals not immediately rejected by the committee? They rely on public financing and public assumption of risk. For example, the Valiant proposal indicates that payments to the City are dependent on when, if, and for how much the condo portions of the project are sold. Isn’t that the definition of speculative?

The Valiant proposal and the Acquest proposals both require the City to finance the conference centers with bonds. Valiant says conference centers rarely cover their own debt. That’s not even speculative. That’s practically a guarantee that the tax-payers will lose.

I really don’t understand the fluid criteria this committee is using to judge these proposals, but I’m glad they’ve at least agreed to allow all six proposals to be further vetted, and if only to a very small degree, by the public.