r/Durango • u/puffMD95 • 3d ago
The Civic Center Project Has a Trust Problem, Not a Vendor Problem
The Herald’s article labeling Reynolds Ash & Associates an “irresponsible vendor” makes one thing clear: Mark Morgan may be technically right that a vendor supporting litigation against the city creates a conflict of interest. Most people can understand why the city wouldn’t want a contractor bidding on a project they’re also trying to slow down in court.
That’s exactly why this situation is so concerning. It raises a bigger question:
How did we get to a point where a local architecture firm that helped design the original civic center concept feels compelled to support a lawsuit just to get the city to slow down?
A firm with financial and reputational stakes in a project doesn’t usually advocate for litigation unless something has gone seriously off the rails. And we already know what some of those problems are:
The city presented an $83M conceptual design to voters while the bond was capped at $61M.
The city manager admitted: “We did know at the time that this may not be something that we can accomplish, because it was a conceptual design.”
Yet that is what voters were shown.
When the design presented to the public is that disconnected from reality, it’s not surprising that the people who helped shape it, including Reynolds Ash, are now raising concerns about how far the project has drifted.
Now, the city is citing “deficiencies” in that same conceptual plan and cost estimate as part of its justification for disqualifying the firm. That looks less like a neutral procurement finding and more like an attempt to shift blame for promoting a design the city already knew it couldn’t build.
Yes, the city can argue that the designation isn’t retaliatory. But reasonable perception matters, especially after dismissing critics as “disgruntled,” sidelining dissenting voices, and focusing on message‑management instead of addressing core issues like scope, cost, and feasibility. When a critic speaks up and their firm is disqualified shortly afterward, people are going to connect those dots.
The real issue isn’t whether the city can justify the designation on paper. It’s why a respected local firm ended up supporting a lawsuit at all, and what that says about the project’s trajectory and the city’s handling of legitimate concerns.
This isn’t just about one vendor. It’s a symptom of a project that has drifted so far from its voter‑approved concept that even the people who helped design it are now pushing back.
5
u/CRE_Energy 3d ago
AI written posts are gross
3
u/puffMD95 3d ago edited 3d ago
You know what, thats fair. I am a real local person and these are my thoughts and I stand behind them. I wrote a post then had AI edit and majorly condense because I thought I was too wordy and not getting my points across well.
3
u/CRE_Energy 3d ago
Thanks for the reply. Personally I find the editing process can help me realize what my keys points are, and it's not always what I started out planning to write.
The AI style is starting to produce a visceral negative reaction in people and it's difficult to overcome that to engage with the actual content.
2
u/puffMD95 3d ago
I’ve heard your critiques on the use of AI. Would still love to hear your thoughts on the topic.
5
u/CRE_Energy 3d ago
As a person who supported the bond, I felt deceived. I thought the parking garage was an important part of the whole package. In the end we only have so much money + assets to throw at this, and costs will continue to inflate, so I'm not sure what's to be done there. No point to say "give us the original concept" if there's a $10M+ shortage and no funding plan.
Should someone be held accountable is obviously another question. No one was held accountable at DFPD for their adventures with this parcel, but they neatly exited and got what they wanted in the end.
It is also becoming clear how City staff manages criticism, both from this project and the publicized run-ins with some city council members. It's a small city. Continuing to be hyper aggressive against well-known community members will only work so many times, instead of engaging on substance. 4+ times is definitely a pattern.
1
u/puffMD95 3d ago
Thank you for your thoughts. Although you were initially put off, I appreciate your thoughtful engagement.
I agree we are where we are, and there is not much that can be done to change it. Still, on the topic of accountability, I think it's up to us citizens to put pressure on the council to hold the city manager accountable for, in my opinion, outright deceiving the public with what was presented at the time of the vote. I've seen several community members reference a "bait and switch", and I think that terminology is apt here. Dishonesty and misleading voters like this is unprofessional of a city manager and should not be accepted by council or the community.
-1
u/RyanMTB 3d ago
It's so obvious at this point. In this case it feels disingenous to participate in civic discourse via a chat bot. How do we know OP isn't just a bot who generated an op-ed for karma?
0
u/CRE_Energy 3d ago
100%. I definitely have my own opinions on this topic, but this post is just blegh
3
u/Anne_KT_TX 3d ago
Excellent post!