I’ve been following the debate about changing Columbia’s governance. Frankly, this debate about the strong mayor format is one largely championed by the editorial staff of The State . The State now is doing a series of editorials on this topic even though a study commission, approved by the city and The State paper earlier, is busy investigating this very topic and will soon publish its findings.

I suspect The State is worrying that the commission will not produce recommendations of its liking, so the paper is now weighing in with more hype in favor of a strong mayor recommendation.

Several points are in order:

1)In my 18 years of service on city council and the hundreds of public meetings I’ve attended, I cannot recall a single citizen coming forward demanding the strong mayor form of government. They had other concerns closer at hand, like crime or taxes.

The State’s championing of the issue aside, it is not widely held throughout the city.

2)The poll commissioned by downtown business interests, which The State uses as proof of widespread public support, has results bought and paid for by those commissioning the poll. Moreover, few residents in the city know much about various forms of local governance – thus, this commission to study the issue in depth.

3)Why is the city of Columbia the only local government targeted by The State for the strong mayor format? What about West Columbia, Lexington or Cayce? Surely such a superior model of governance suits all, don’t you think?

4) The State’s short list of issues defining the need for change is pitiful. And historically incorrect. Our negotiations with SCE&G on the bus system were about money, not about who negotiated for the city. Minor League baseball’s decline in Columbia has more to do with USC sports and market share, than anything council or the mayor did or did not do. And CanalSide was delayed because the City of Columbia insisted (both council & the mayor) that we act as our own developer for the project. That was a mistake.

5)I believe the strong mayor format is a dangerous option for our community because it threatens to put more politics into the way the city is managed, not less. No one will benefit from this except those who already have a lot of power. Surely one can see influential big business interests, financing polls and such, have figured this out.

6)If there is one structural deficiency holding us back, it is not Columbia’s governance. Rather, it’s the jurisdictional disputes and competing interests of differing municipal and county authorities here in the Midlands. Mass transit, tourism, economic development, planning issues, these are the big concerns affecting our future. We would be better-served investigating consolidation and increased regional cooperation than this fool’s gold of a strong mayor form of government.

7)Finally, let me say it is hypocritical of The State to advocate for governance change in the City of Columbia while refusing to annex into the city itself. It is one thing to advocate change, and another to put your corporate wallet where your mouth is.

Jim Papadea is a commercial realtor and former member of Columbia City Council.