"Risk is the ability to make good decisions that can move forward. Without risk, you go backwards."
Bold or foolhardy? That is the question.
Mayor Wayne Wright's statement about risk is absolutely true - if the risk is tempered with a lot of foresight, an abundance of support and, dare we say, luck.
Risk by its very nature involves an element of gambling. I won't belabour the point that the city is using taxpayer money to fund this risk - I expect other writers will hammer the city on that point.
The city's move to build the $94-million civic centre and office tower project on its own, after its developer partner dropped out, is ultimately dependent on supply and demand.
The real estate market will probably determine whether this was a good risk or a bad gamble.
However, I believe that savvy developers are watching on the sidelines rubbing their hands together.
It's a very tough business. Developers who are able to man-age huge projects and do it profitably in these times are those who have usually learned the ropes by losing millions - often hitting rock bottom - over decades of experience.
You don't get to be a successful developer without learning how to use every available tool to get the job done quickly and squeeze out a profit. Developers are - for the most part - grinders.
City halls are not designed to squeeze out profits and push for fast builds. In fact, they're designed to make sure developers go through all the time-sucking - but important - approval processes.
And New Westminster's city hall is a small one in comparison to other cities. There's not a lot of spare staff time. In fact, given that some senior staff are on sick leave, adding a huge project to the city hall workload may be one of the riskiest parts of this project.
That's why I think some developer will wait until city hall looks like it's getting behind and is drowning in problems before stepping in with a bargain-basement offer.
Of course, I could be wrong. And, honestly, hope I am.
I like to see New Westminster swing for the fences. It's one of the reasons why I love the city.
It's a bit of an underdog city trying to keep an oasis of community with some pretty big neighbours pushing up against it.
There's also another plotline that may seem far-fetched but may be plausible.
Comments have been made in the past about moving city hall downtown.
Obviously, the land that city hall now sits on is in a prime location for residential or commercial development.
Could city leaders be thinking they'll relocate city hall offices to the office portion above the civic centre and sell the land the city hall is now on to pay for the move? That would, to say the least, be a very complicated deal.
And given that the city has during the past decade spent oodles of money on upgrades and renovations to city hall, it hardly seems fiscally responsible.
But politicians have done stranger things.
In any case, what I don't like about the current plan is the city's decision to take the $8 million planned for a pedestrian crossing bridge to Queensborough to help fund the centre plan.
Queensborough is still waiting for long-promised improvements. Even the traffic roundabouts which were supposed to be removed are looking like broken, tired, weedy obstacles.
While 'Boro citizens are hardly surprised by the move, taking from the "needy" community to help fund the centre is a poor decision. But one, alas, that involves less political risk.
Pat Tracy is the editor of The Record and Burnaby NOW newspapers. You can follow her on Twitter, @PatTracy.
