The leaders of the Embassy Square Foundation sounded an ominous warning this week: If people don’t stop questioning the Embassy project, the whole thing might fall apart. What we need instead, foundation Chairman Sam Watkins suggested, is a city full of cheerleaders.
That attitude is all too common these days not just in Vance County, but in America, and it’s a scary trend.
When did we decide that anything but unquestioned support was equivalent to opposition? When did we conclude that only a select few people hold all the right answers?
On the national level, people are accused of being unpatriotic if they raise questions about our conduct of the war in Iraq or the use of the Patriot Act for homeland security. On the local level, you’re suspected of trying to tear down Henderson, brick by brick, if you dare to express doubts about any aspect of the Embassy cultural center.
Certainly some people raise questions as a way to criticize, to plant doubts, to rip apart. But many of us just want more information before we make decisions. It’s called being an informed citizen — you know, the most important element of any democratic system.
Do we best fulfill our responsibilities as good citizens by accepting the plans and decisions others made, often behind closed doors? Or do we play our proper role by asking for, even demanding, as much information as possible about a project that is ultimately ours and could be a drain on our taxes for decades?
To be specific about Embassy Square, why must we be bound by decisions made five or six years ago when the phased nature of the project gives us opportunities to re-examine and reconsider our efforts? Why can’t we take the next six months or so to have a reasonable public discussion about how we will pay the operational costs of the new library and whether we need and still want a theater as part of the project?
We think the time is perfect to reassess the vision of Embassy Square. The first beams for the library are in the ground; the library will be built. That alone would be a worthy accomplishment for the Embassy foundation. But we don’t think we’re alone in harboring doubts about Phase 2, the theater.
Watkins was absolutely right Tuesday night when he argued that the opening of the library will produce a surge of excitement and support that can be translated into fundraising. But the opening is about 10 months away, so we have time to prepare for the next capital campaign.
Long before the library opening, we’ll be done with the budget for 2005-06, and we’ll have a much better idea of the current and future look of city finances. Remember, the decision to build the performing arts center was made before Harriet & Henderson Yarns folded, before Americal stopped manufacturing, before J.P. Taylor Tobacco ended its century-plus relationship with Henderson, before the city’s general fund balance fell from more than 40 percent of the annual budget to less than 4 percent.
And don’t forget the municipal elections coming Oct. 11. Watkins wanted to claim the last council elections as an endorsement of the Embassy project; this year’s elections could provide just such a mandate or signal voters’ desire to slow down or change directions downtown.
It’s up to the Embassy folks to decide whether their plans are set in stone or open to debate. The foundation has possession of the land until it finishes construction, and the foundation is an independent, nonprofit group far outside the control of the City Council.
Whether or not Phase 2 of the Embassy cultural center comes up for any official discussion, it’s every Hendersonian’s right and responsibility to ask questions about the project. We hope that Embassy supporters will listen and attempt to convince the public of the value of Phase 2, rather than dismiss the questioners as an annoying, tiny minority threatening a $15 million vision of the future. The real threat is to the public’s trust if the Embassy foundation answers questions only with counterattacks and defensiveness.
In the end, we all want the same thing: a greater future for Henderson and its people. Intelligent, informed, reasonable people can hold differing opinions of how to get there. That’s how democracy works.