One of the oldest tricks in politics is demanding a solution to a problem, real or imagined, under the crush of an artificial deadline.

Fortunately, there’s a time-tested antidote (and talking point) to frustrate those playing that game: Anything worth passing is worth doing right.

The inevitable conflict between these dynamics sums up Thursday’s middle-of-summer, 14-hour Fresno City Council meeting. Three of Council President Nelson Esparza’s four proposed November ballot initiatives got shredded like cheese on a $4.99 pizza.

And deservedly so.

Ballot measures are supposed to be vetted responses to well-documented, serious problems. The pros and cons should be debated thoroughly in community forums, op-eds, and over kitchen tables in every neighborhood.

They shouldn’t be politically driven drivel cooked up by a select few and slammed in the public’s face when half the city is escaping Fresno’s searing heat.

Lame Advisory Group Idea Easily Picked Apart

Let’s start with the so-called citizen’s redistricting advisory committee measure, a piece of window dressing that floated across council chambers on gossamer wings before getting snuffed.

If you want Fresno citizens drawing City Council district maps after every census, give them that power. Come out with an independent commission proposal, let folks chew on it, and send it to the voters for the 2028 ballot.

Don’t waste our time on a silly advisory group with no real purpose beyond tricking appointees into thinking they’re part of the in crowd. Especially when that advisory group, as proposed, would exclude new citizens, young voters, and military veterans who might have skipped a primary election, a la Councilmember Nick Richardson.

Clearly, Esparza didn’t think this one through. In addition, he provided a high-profile venue for those hungry for an independent commission to make their case. They should have thanked Esparza for unintentionally making their case on the way out.

Term Limits Deserve Serious Debate, Not a Rush Job

As for the ballot measure asking voters to amend Fresno term limits, the last time something of this magnitude was broached, city leaders formed a Little Hoover Commission. The stated reason for adopting term limits and changing from a city manager form of government to the strong-mayor form of government we have today was to increase the accountability of elected leaders.

After many months of public discussion, the proposal went to voters, who passed it in 1993. However, the changes didn’t go into effect until 1997.

Esparza’s idea of allowing city councilmembers and the mayor to serve three terms for a total of 12 years is worth investigating. However, this rush job smacked of being designed to cement some current councilmembers, as well as Mayor Jerry Dyer, in their seats. It also came off as a way to derail those lining up to run for mayor in 2028.

SEDA Decision Is Too Important to Punt

What is there left to say about the Southeast Development Area?

Tens of millions of words, I’d imagine. Again, Esparza made a last-minute proposal. This one would’ve shifted a controversial decision about the growth area’s future from councilmembers to voters. Some at City Hall apparently believe that when the going gets tough, it’s time to punt.

With scheduled SEDA hearings coming up, the council majority said no thank you to Esparza’s “compromise” proposal.

One Proposal With Merit

The lone Esparza initiative destined for the November 2028 ballot was the only one with merit and the lone one facing a genuine deadline. The proposal is an insurance policy to continue funding for Fresno roads and other needs via a half-cent sales tax should the county’s transportation tax not be extended.

Though hastily crafted, it was worth passing. Come November, we’ll see if voters agree.