Deferred maintenance? Come on! How bad could it possibly get?

I have to disagree with the Star's Yael Abouhalkah this morning. He asserts in his column that it was a good thing when the Chamber of Commerce met with the Mayor and City Manager and reworded their report suggesting spending priorities on infrastructure. The Chamber had originally concluded that we should increase to 50% of sales tax collected and dedicate it to deferred maintenance instead of new projects. Heck I'd take 50% to go to any maintenance, but alas I digress. The Mayor and City Manager pitched a fit and the Chamber agreed to meet with them. A compromise was found and the Chamber reworded their recommendation to "up to 50%." My high school grammar teacher was right. Never underestimate the power of a well-placed prepositional phrase! Mr. Abouhalkah contends in his column that this whole compromise is a good thing. I respectfully disagree. I think public discourse over important topics like the financial policies for our city is very important. Behind the scenes agreements over language doesn't strike me as good government. It certainly doesn't strike me as open government. What's wrong with a little public debate now and then? So the Chamber of Commerce has an opinion. So what? It's not like the Chamber sets policy. (Go ahead and click through. I'll wait. I'll even put some imaginary hold music in your head. How about Neil Diamond? We're comin' to America....) And we're back. I have nothing against the Chamber of Commerce, but shouldn't they be an independent entity? I wouldn't expect them to have the power to write City policy any more than I would expect city government to write the Chamber's position papers. Buy hey, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. Or I could meet behind closed doors with influential people and rewrite this entire post. Hmmmm....