Source: The Hamlet Syndrome.
Between the May public hearing and the June codification into ordinance, one Council Member flip-flopped his vote from "yes" to "no", denying a special use permit for a smoking establishment in Richardson. Now, in October, the Richardson City Council voted 6-1 to approve a special use permit for a smoking establishment for the same restaurant, reversing that 4-3 vote in June. This time, three Council Members flip-flopped their votes from "no" to "yes." The codification of this latest vote into ordinance will follow, assuming the Council is now done flip-flopping. Armchair psychiatry is stupid, but here I go anyway. What's with this Hamlet Syndrome on Richardson City Council?
Ruled by his intelligence, Hamlet examines ideas and plans from many different angles before putting them into action. Although his thoughtfulness is admirable, his endless contemplation leads to his inability to make and commit to decisions. In the end, that is the cause of his doom.
Three members of the Richardson City Council appear to be likewise indecisive, finding good reasons to both support and oppose the matters that come before them, appearing torn between them, unable to make clear decisions. In their comments, they procrastinate making any decision, as if they are waiting for a bolt of lightning to show them the way, not committing until the time comes when they are forced to raise their hands to vote.
Joe Corcoran said, "In this case, like many of those who spoke said, it just isn't in my opinion in a good location for this business." But when the time came, he voted "yes." The location didn't change any time from him voting, in three different meetings, first "yes", then "no", then "yes" again. But his vote changed each time. And he didn't explain his last change of mind. That's a sign of indecision.
In May, Arefin Shamsul gave the same reason as Corcoran for voting "no," saying it's just the wrong location. Then in October, after talking about everything from alcohol to halal meat to tobacco-free hookah and finally to bollards between the parking and the patio, he, too, voted "yes." What decided him? The location of the restaurant didn't change. That, too, is a sign of indecision.
Ken Hutchenrider might be the hardest head to psychoanalyze. He was clearer this week than he has been before. "I don't think hookah in any form or fashion is safe smoking." So he's a hard "no" right? On the other hand, he said, "I still do not believe this is the right location." So, maybe he's not dead set against smoking, but only the location. In any case, in the end he voted "yes." What decided him? Who knows? That, too, is a sign of indecision.
Assuming Council Members want to overcome indecisivenss, what would I recommend? First, I urge them to think long and hard about what their principles are for deciding such cases on City Council, before any particular case comes before them. I hold out Mayor Paul Voelker as an example of someone who knows his guiding principles and usually limits his public remarks to an explanation of those principles. During this Council meeting he referred to earlier cases regarding applications for a permit for a smoking establishment. He explained his votes this way: "I was on that council at the time, and I'll use the same argument I use tonight that I used during that discussion, which is every time this comes up for a restaurant that has smoking. I say how many do we have? Where are they at? And how does that fit into their business model and make them successful?" Now, it's possible for others to ask those very same questions and come up with different answers than Voelker does, but the important thing to avoid being indecisive is to know what the questions are in your own mind, the questions whose answers will guide your decision. And leave the extraneous matters off the table. Given how Corcoran's, Arefin's, and Hutchenrider's ultimate votes seemed to be at odds with their own comments during deliberations, it seems to me they don't know in their own minds what the basic principles are on which they'll decide their votes. If you have to work those out on the fly, indecisiveness is likely.
What principles should guide Council Members? That's something each has to work out for themselves. One principle I'd offer is to focus on the long-term, not the short-term. Most of the matters that come before any city council are land use issues. Too often deliberations end up revolving around the specific tenants in the buildings whose development is being discussed, and the particular food or entertainment proposals those tenants will offer. I urge Council Members not to overthink that. Food popularity comes and goes. Tenants come and go. Special permits tied to current businesses come and go. But the form that developments take lasts forever. Visit Boston. Its narrow, curving streets were determined 400 years ago. Today, some people like them, some hate them, but we're stuck with them centuries past the particular uses the streets and buildings were put to in the 1600s. Same for the buildings we approve today. Say we build them for cars, not pedestrians, and that's what our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be stuck with forever, long after Chicken Fries and Chalupa Supremes and whatnot, maybe even hookah, are distant memories. Focus more on the form a development will take. Focus less on who will occupy the building. Council Members should agonize a little less over deciding whether or not a current restaurant owner offers hookah smoking on a patio, and a lot more over why we keep building drive-through, fast-food restaurants on pad sites. Richardson will be better off in the long run.
But that's just my own personal principles. Individual Council Members are free to have their own. I just urge them to take time now to decide what they are. It'll make your jobs so much easier on Monday nights.
No comments:
Post a Comment