Nugget Project: Last-minute lobbying effort not helpful

I was just finishing up a column about how far the Nugget Project has come, from a vague, unrealistic plan that left the city on the hook for the whole bill, to an exciting, well-designed public-private partnership that deserves our qualified support.

But I was forwarded an email this morning that almost makes me want to change my mind.

The email sent out by proponents of the project had two attachments. One of the attachments is titled "Carson City Knowledge + Discovery Center Communications Campaign" and encourages people to write/email/call city supervisors in support of the project, and includes a list of talking points and tips on how to draft and effective letter, as well as a sample letter for guidance. See attachment below.

This would seem to be a continuation of the marketing plan put out by the library, as we covered here.

I think there is something wrong with city employees actively lobbying elected city officials as part of their official duties. It's not illegal, unless employees are supporting specific candidates or ballot initiatives. There's nothing wrong with employees supplying factual information to help people make up their own minds about issues like the Nugget Project, or even voicing their position on such issues.

But sending out this talking points document goes way too far. It encourages people to use cherry-picked facts to lobby board members, putting words in their mouths to maximize the effect. And it seems this document was created and distributed using city dollars.

Let's take this portion that the document asks people to include in their correspondence with board members: "Remind the Board of Supervisors that decisions must be made now because the project has been fully vetted and "unknowns" and "uncertainties" have been eliminated."

Fully vetted? Unknowns and uncertainties eliminated? Not according to members of the Nugget Advisory Committee, who voted to pass the project onto the board of supervisors only after pointing out that there were still several outstanding questions, from the specifics of the non-profit entity that would assume ownership of the project, to the details of how the financing would work. This document wants people to believe all the questions are answered, and all that's left to do is to approve it and get the shovels digging. That's simply not true.

But it gets worse. Here's my favorite part: "Worst of all the political posturing has contributed to a stalled process at great expense to stakeholders and the community at-large."

Really? Are the proponents claiming we would be better off with the original Nugget Project plan, where the city would be paying to lease the land forever? Where all the money comes from the city with no commitment of private funds? Where the city would need to pony up $1.2 million a year out of the general fund in addition to increasing sales taxes to pay for it?

This project stalled because the previous plan they came up with sucked, and a majority of the board didn't support it.

Perhaps the person or persons who wrote up these talking points could be truthful and admit that what they call "political posturing" has resulted in a far better project, one that does more, looks better and costs less. Perhaps they could also admit that the process isn't finished, that there are details to work out, and this vote by the board is not a guarantee that the project will be built.

I would also suggest they thank the critics of this project, whose voices helped kill a bad plan, and led to a much better one. But I'm not holding my breath.

The reality here is that a hardcore group of proponents of this project adopted a "with us or against us" position from the beginning. When the project was first presented and the Carson City Chamber of Commerce withheld their support pending more information, these proponents blasted them, over and over again. Think about that. A group comes out and says it doesn't know enough about a project to take a position, and gets attacked for it. Wouldn't it have been better to try and answer the questions the chamber was asking, to give them more information on which they could make a decision? That incident was very telling, and raised suspicions that something wasn't right.

I got to see these attacks first hand when I started writing about the project. Friends I had been close to, who I share many political viewpoints with, cut off contact because I asked questions about parts of this project, and the different roles people played in it. I was stunned and hurt by this. After all, I've always had friends across the political spectrum, some of whom I vigorously disagree with, yet maintain cordial relations. Then on this one issue, I'm shunned by people who I used to respect, who I thought understood that a journalist's role is to raise questions.

And it's not just me. As for the Carson Now website, we repeatedly invited the proponents to submit columns, letters, anything they wanted to support their viewpoint on this project. We talked to everyone, from Nugget President Steve Neighbors on down, telling them we would publish their views completely unedited, as much as they wanted. We even offered to publish for free the "advertorials" they were planning to pay the Nevada Appeal to run in the newspaper.

What did we hear back? Crickets. We offered them an open forum to promote the benefits of this project, and they ignored the offer.

This became comical at one point. I asked the public relations person working for Neighbors to submit the column her boss had penned about the project that ran in the Nevada Appeal. Her excuse was that it wouldn't be right to send us the same column. Huh?

The conclusion I drew from this is that because we weren't cheerleading for this project like another media outlet, that they thought this was a good way to punish us. They didn't want an open debate. They want the project approved, period. And if they have to throw their friends and their principles under the bus, so be it.

Another consequence I see, when looking at these talking points and the other documents these people have sent out, is the very good chance of this project not living up to expectations. The way these proponents talk, the Nugget Project is the best thing to happen to Carson City since statehood, and the only way to turn our local economy around. If this project doesn't live up to its high billing like some other projects (cough—Pony Express Pavilion—cough), it might make it twice as hard to get future projects passed.

As I said, this project has come a long way, and the changes made in the latest iteration have won over many critics. But if this hardcore group of proponents persists with these divisive tactics, it may end up damaging that support. If you can't trust the main backers of his project to ditch the divisive politics and be truthful, how can we trust them to turn these plans into reality?

There is a high probability that the board will vote Thursday to move forward with the Nugget Project, even without any of this last-minute lobbying. Then it will be time for both sides to cut the crap, shake hands and work together to make it the best project we can get.