Make no mistake: Mary Suhm was a great city manager. How could she not be? To her, dreaming of and funding greatness — those big, gaudy set pieces upon the stage where the cash-strapped “Dallas: The City” played for the past eight years — was what the job was all about.

The list is indeed impressive, in that it is designed to impress: The Trinity River Project. Convention Center hotel. American Airlines Center (when she was assistant city manager). The Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge. Big D by its very name must be stocked with Big Things, and Suhm was happy to go shop for them.

Nothing wrong with that, per se. People voted for these big-ticket items. They’re pretty to look at. What we should ask when evaluating her career, though, are these two questions: At what cost where achievements achieved, and how much credit does she deserve?

I’ll take the second question first, because it’s the easiest answer: a lot in terms of the items on the list, very little for the urban development around them. To frame this point, let’s take this paragraph from Rudy Bush’s post about Suhm’s announcement that she is stepping down:

In other words, Dallas did the same thing every other major urban center did: New York and San Francisco and Seattle and Chicago and Atlanta and Philadelphia and on and on became safer, turned their attention to the urban core and became less reliant on cars. They did so because the next generation’s habits demanded it, and the wealth of that growing tax base could pay for it.

And, seriously, we’re going to praise the progressiveness of someone whose urban vision revolved around billion-dollar toll roads inside a levee? RUFKM?

I also don’t know if I buy Bush’s contention that she was “accessible to the public,” but I think he means she answered any and all press questions that came her way.

That’s indeed admirable, but I really believe the next city manager needs to be a much more public figure, someone who stands with the mayor to explain how his or her vision will be funded and what sacrifices will be necessary — each and every time. Answering those questions at weekly city council sessions don’t count for me. It needs to be more like a coach (mayor) and GM/owner (city manager) at the interview table together after games.

Why is she really leaving now? Who knows? They don’t teach you how to know what’s really going on in someone else’s mind, as Neil Gaiman said. But as everyone has already speculated, the makeup of the next city council, even without frequent critic Angela Hunt around, will be much more hostile toward Suhm. (Which could mean the council collectively gets off both knees and takes a stance on bended knee, but still … ) Especially given her performance in the fracking debate, which I thought she should resign over.

I don’t think avoiding a contentious council is her motive, though. How could it be? Great people welcome fighting for the greater good. And Suhm, as we’ve already determined, was super great.

Elsewhere

One Main Place may foreclose. I’ve got dibs!

Remember our last fire chief? He wasn’t a Suhm fan either. Now he’s taking flak in Boston.

Retweets

This is just awful.

The bridge sure is pretty. But to suggest it is responsible for core urban growth? How did the rest of the urban core grow without bridges?

Photo by Justin Terveen

The bridge sure is pretty. But to suggest it is responsible for core urban growth? How did the rest of the urban core grow without bridges?