10/24/2023
Thanks for speaking out Councilman Austin. This is a great summary of how we got here and the key reasons to vote no on 480 and keep the hospital on the hill. Our hospital can grow in the space it has and should.
From Councilman Austin Aslan:
Are you still on the fence about Prop 480? I'd like to share with you the core reasoning behind my NO vote. This is not a campaign message. This is my authentic perspective alone.
I have not been following online and social media conversations about 480. I already sleep too little as it is. But I’m here now because we’re in the voting window and if I can offer a perspective that might be persuasive for those that are struggling to decide, I ought to do so.
My decision to support a NO vote has always been quite straight-forward at its core, and so articulating it shouldn’t take long. But to start, I want to be very clear: I’ve always understood there to be legitimate reasons to fall on either side of this issue. I have never impugned ANYONE who has drawn a different conclusion than me, and it is unfair for someone to associate me with the nastiness of the 480 campaigns. All seven of us on Council have had an incredibly difficult summer dealing with the brutality of accusations and rumors and the vitriol. I deeply respect the right of my colleagues to express different values and to draw their own conclusions, and I hope to God I have never spoken or acted in a way contrary to that. That said, I believe I have a right to lend my voice to a cause without automatically having to defend myself against insinuations that I’m responsible for, or accountable to, the pettiest elements that seem to be inherent in heated campaigns. Relatedly, it’s absurd for folks out there to be questioning the ethics and motivations of my fellow councilmembers and mayor. I don't agree with their conclusions but I would never question whether their decision-making process was on the level.
So, why am I a No vote?
I firmly believe that our hospital can be modernized in place. And if we can modernize it in place, we have a moral obligation to do so.
That’s it.
But let’s break it down at bit. Can we actually modernize in place? Obviously, it can be done. Full stop. Lot’s to unpack here but at the end of the day it could work. If we can build a roundabout at Cedar and Lockett, ffs, we can modernize our hospital. That’s a joke, but prove me wrong on the larger point. Modernizing our hospital, at its core, is a matter of resources and will. The hospital has demonstrated it has resources. They say they don’t have the will. Is that a bluff? I don’t think so. But they are feeling bruised right now, and elections matter, and conversations do shift when the campaigning is done. I have lived this experience many times on Council. I want to believe NAH CEO David Cheney, who comes from Sutter, which I’ve always held in the highest regard, is beyond simply taking his ball and going elsewhere if they don’t get their rezone. A big question is: does the community have the will to let it happen? I’m not sure. It depends on how strong the NIMBY component actually is (I find the speculation on this amusing in that I think very few people are actually in that camp…more on that later). But I can promise you that if 480 goes down, I will be personally committed to helping NAH get to “yes” on staying within their current footprint. What do they need? Give us a list. Let’s make it happen. I’m serious about that. The NO folks can’t just be a dog that catches a postal truck. One of the greatest principles of my political life is that “The action is in the reaction.” If we actually manage to stop this overreach of a mega-development, we MUST pivot quickly and authentically to supporting what it takes to modernize in place.
What about the moral obligation to stay where we are? Others may disagree with this imperative--it's a value-based perspective. But as an advocate of smart growth and a champion of doing what we have to in order to actually address our global climate crisis, this is a bedrock principle for me. We have an opportunity and an obligation to show the US and the world how to stand up for smart growth and resist the eternally-seductive allure of starting from scratch on new land. Let’s seize this opportunity with our No votes.
For me, that's really what it comes down to.
But I'll throw out a couple other thoughts before I take my leave.
-The idea that we’re being forced as voters to choose between a hospital of the future (The Move) and the healthcare extinction vortex of Not Moving, is a logical fallacy. Don’t fall for that narrative. Voting yes only to support the creation of a priority healthcare outcome (take your pick…cancer care, pediatric, etc…) falls squarely into that rut of thinking about this as an either/or outcome. I’m convinced that we can keep our hospital in place and also expand services and specialties. Conversely, the new hospital is NOT a slam dunk for never having to travel to Phx for the care you need.
-Those 200 acres are going to get developed one way or another. It’s part of the existing regional plan. This isn’t about trees.
-Many health care organizations play realtor as a way to help fund what they do. NAH shouldn’t be vilified simply for wanting to do a master development. The problem I have is that they’re using a proposed new hospital to cut in line. Our community would have a big problem with the size of development NAH is hoping to achieve if the hospital wasn’t part of the equation. They have an asymmetric advantage over other would-be developers of those parcels. It's inherently unfair and it strays wildly from what makes Flagstaff so unique and special, imo.
-The forces that collected 4800 signatures and came together to quite-plausibly torpedo NAH’s plans are incredibly multivariate. I defy anyone to convince me this would have gotten so far if it were just about NIMBYism, or smart growth, for that matter. MANY developments move forward in Flagstaff despite fierce opposition. NAH’s crisis with this community, and all the intricacies of that, are real. We wouldn’t be here if NAH didn’t have a planetary-sized trust problem. That’s a crater of their own making. The No effort is a coalition of many different causes and voices.
-When this was first voted upon in late May, I asked for six more months. I spoke for 18 minutes about why I was convinced the findings weren’t being met, and I pointed out that NAH hadn’t brought the community into this debate sufficiently or respectfully enough. I don’t know that another six months would have solved much. But it's simply a fact that the public wouldn’t be weighing in on this issue during a special election that is open for voting right now if my motion to discuss a six-month pause had found support.
-As an author, I know that good dialogue involves characters saying anything and everything EXCEPT for what they actually mean. I've observed that to be so true in this campaign. I invite you to cut out all the noise. 480 is very simply a battle between smart growth and growth acceleration. It's entirely a values-based decision. That is precisely why smart people can arrive at very different conclusions about this in good faith. Let's remember this and be patient with each other.
Did I forget something? I'm sure I did. lol
I’m going to leave it there. I have a voice-text message going out about 480 soon. I hope you’ll listen to it. It’s a minute long. If you could say all that I just did in one minute, then judge my distillation of campaign rhetoric harshly. But it’s been cathartic for me to share these thoughts authentically and more at length here. Again, stay kind and thoughtful with reactions. I reserve the right not to get dragged into replies. These views are solely my own and not a reflection of Council or the City of Flagstaff.
