The late, great Henry Howell used to say, “There’s more going around in the dark than Santa Claus.” As the hours of daylight dwindle for the next week or so, those working in the dark have more time to obscure what it is that they are doing. Additionally, with the elections in our rear-view mirrors and winter holiday plans in the forefront of many people’s minds, the final city council meeting of the calendar year tends to receive far less public attention than most others. Consequently, if our officials intend to avoid citizen oversight, this is an ideal time for them to act. PCW feels obliged, therefore, to shine its high beams on three agenda items slated to come before council this Tuesday evening: 18-466 – Appropriation of $1,820,000 to Acquire Economically Significant Property; 18-462 – Precinct Number 24 Location Change; and 18-465 – Re-appropriation of FY2019 CIP Funds for the Circle of Sail Project. We believe that each of these matters merit more public attention before adoption than they are likely to receive in the current season.The first of this trio, agenda item 18-466, is the most problematic.That the  background material posted with the agenda provides no address or other identifying information about the property leaves us no means of verifying the representations that it is “economically significant”, that the offering price of “one-third of its current assessed value” is a good buy for the city, or that the property is in danger of falling prey to “blighting influences”. We also have no idea of who the current owner is. Based on other acquisitions the city has made in times past, including the present courts complex site and the 801 Water Street property, we might well wonder if the proposed purchase isn’t just another in a long sequence of sweetheart deals with “good ole boys/gals”. Whatever the case, the public deserves to know what we are buying and from whom before this sale receives council approval. Assuming that city officials provide timely answers to the preceding questions — we won’t be holding our breath — why should we increase our inventory of nontaxable property when our avowed goal is to sell off what we already hold? In the context of an imminent  “clawback” of nineteen-odd acres at Victory Crossing, this acquisition seems particularly ill-considered. Given our unimpressive track record in the real estate market and our perennial fiscal constraints, this deal might well be one we should pass on.

The second item, 18-462, is not particularly controversial in and of itself, but it is connected to an issue of greater import. The reason for relocating the polling place in question is that Willett Hall has closed. At their retreat earlier this year, the council members in attendance — Mayor Rowe and Council Members Clark, Lucas-Burke, Moody, Psimas, and Smith — agreed that restoring Willett Hall was too costly an undertaking, leaving demolition as the sole alternative. (See “Portsmouth’s Willett Hall in More than Deep Water“.) That this conversation and conclusion came with no prior or subsequent community engagement is most objectionable. With a seating capacity of nearly 2,000, the hall is the largest indoor venue in Portsmouth. Its exceptional acoustics and unobstructed view of the stage made it a popular venue for decades as well as a point of civic pride. Our neighbors in the region, Hampton and Norfolk, collaborated with the private sector to restore the American Theatre and the Attucks, respectively, both of which are older structures than Willett. We believe that venerable performance space deserves a better future than as a pile of rubble.

Lastly, item 18-465 is troubling in terms of what it suggests about both city finances and priorities. The proposal to divert $85,000 from bicycle-pedestrian accommodations — a part of the Churchland Bridge westbound span reconstruction — to provide a foundation for a sculpture to be placed in the downtown traffic circle seems misguided. Although the agenda background material asserts the bridge enhancements are “eligible for funding through [VDOT] local assistance programs”, eligibility does not ensure availability. Many VDOT grants involve competition among localities, so someone else could end up with that award. In terms of the hierarchy of needs, providing a safe means for bicyclists, pedestrians, including those pushing strollers, and people using wheelchairs, to cross the river would take precedence over a piece of urban ornamentation. Additionally, the original sales pitch for the project by the Support Portsmouth Public Art group was that they had secured private funding for the creation and installation of the sculpture, so city government only needed to grant permission for use of the land, provide maintenance, and assume legal liability. Once the project moved from conceptualization to implementation, however, the arts group learned that the structure would require pilings to stabilize it. This “mission creep” has brought us to the present juncture with the city digging into its coffers to make up the cost difference.

The unsettling inference from the proposed “rob Peter to pay Paul” shift of funds is that we must be more fiscally stressed than anyone in officialdom has acknowledged. Although it is not an inconsequential sum, the $85,000 in question is a very small portion of a $720 million budget. Yet, only a month ago, council pulled from the General Fund – Unassigned Fund Balance $1.9 million for employee bonuses and another half-million dollars for retirees in the city retirement plans. Nobody on council was moved by the argument that, at the time in question, we did not have an audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) to lend us assurance that the allocations were prudent. (Incidentally, even at this writing, the FY 2018 CAFR is not available to the public.) We are left to wonder, then, what the actual state of our general fund is.

For the reasons stated above, I will be speaking in opposition to items 18-465 and 18-466 tonight and expressing concern about the closing of Willett Hall brought to light by 18-462. My opinion alone, however, will not move them. Consequently, if you desire a different outcome, please voice your opinion to our elected city officials . . . and turn on a few lights. Santa Claus isn’t the only one working under the cover of darkness.