ACI shares

I think the commission ended up doing the right thing here. Doesn't seem like a good idea to have the city own shares, even a small amount, of a private development group, even one that exists for the overall community good.

That said, some of the talk about how business and government shouldn't mix goes too far. Obviously government and business DO mix and need to mix. Look at Cowley First, where a public group promoting economic development gets funding from private businesses, who then have seat at the board to make decisions. The way it's set up provides for decision-making for the overall good of the county.

Other examples are redevelopment agencies inside cities and counties that work closely, even sometimes funding, private development if a larger public benefit can be found.

But with ACI, we had the potential of the city being a shareholder, or part owner, in a private, for profit company. Perhaps ACI should look at changing its model to a non profit, or even a public agency. The distrust, which appears to me unfounded, among the public, seems to be because of the way it operates. And, let's be honest, because ACI and Home National Bank had such close connections.