Against the background of a City drowning in pre-existing debt, while also watching much of its infrastructure crumbling, I’m curious what the responses to the following questions will be.
Question One: Do you think it’s a good idea for the City to commit to spending a minimum of $17 million dollars on a new waterfront?
Question Two: If yes, why? If no, would you rather see a similar amount of money spent on necessary infrastructure?
Question Three: Given the reality of climate change and the anticipated rising tides associated with that, do you think it’s wise to spend money trying to create a new, manmade beach in Port Angeles?
Question Four: There are twenty-eight new security cameras along the waterfront. Twenty-eight. Is that enough, too much, or not nearly enough?
Twenty-eight cameras to watch the waterfront...More cameras than people down there?
Question Five: Do you think that the majority of the City Council voted to approve the new $17 million dollar waterfront because they, A) Truly think it will somehow boost tourism, B) Truly think it will be an asset for local residents, or C) It’s sexier and more exciting to have your name associated with a new development than it is to say, “Hey, I voted to replace old sewer pipes”?
Question Six: How’s the view of Nippon from the new waterfront? Would you buy a postcard of that view?
Question Seven: How’s the smell of those sewage outfall pipes from the new waterfront? Does it smell like success?