Rex Griswold and Scott Smith have started to reveal their plans for Mesa as part of
ramping up for the May Election. Both of them have selected semi-catchy names for their plan, which seems to be the rage when it comes to rolling out an idea. Makes you wonder which takes longer, the name of the plan or the plan itself. Here is a summary of what they have to say:
"Moving Mesa Forward"
Rex Griswold's 100-day plan
-Participate in federal immigration training for Mesa police officers
-Push a four-minute fire response time, prioritize calls for service
-Create plan for sale of
Pinal County land to pay for debt and infrastructure
-Identify new revenue sources, such as advertising on city buses, increase citywide recycling, reduce city's purchase of bottled water
-Reorganize city's Web site to improve access, hold online forums
-Regularly meet with city employee groups to build morale
-Develop partnership with Mesa employers and other local leaders
"Building a Better Mesa"Scott Smith's plan
-Promote pride in the city and its assets
-Bring back community-building events such as parades
-Survey residents and customers to gauge city services
-Bring back people and recommendations from the Financing the Future 2025 project
-Establish a reward fund for employees who suggest innovative ideas
-Sell city-owned assets to reduce debt and create rainy-day funds
Both plans seem to have their merits and have some pretty decent ideas. At first blush, it looks to me like an "insider" vs. an "outsider" plan.
To me, Griswold's plan comes off with an "insider" flair. I am not saying that
necessarily as a negative, I am sure some will point to that as a positive theme. Let me explain what I mean: Someone who is inside the system would know that the city uses a lot of water bottles and thus its a luxury that could be cut. They would also know how people feel about the website and would have some experience in the complaints they receive. They would understand what
training is needed and the internal details of employee relations. He also doesn't focus as much on pointing out the faults in the current system.
Smith's plan comes off with an "outsider" flair. Whether that is positive or negative will depend on who you talk to. Smith focuses on how people from the outside perceive the city and how it serves its residents. Promoting pride and building community are more about getting the external things in order over fixing the internal city struggles. Bringing back the Financing the Future folks and customer surveys bring more focus on how external people feel about the city and what they think should be done. However, he doesn't have much focus on the best practices that the City is already doing to improve.
Like I said, I think both plans have some interesting things to say. I am looking forward to hearing more from both of them.
Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.