The hilarious thing about all of this nonsense is that the "neighbors"(meaning SHCA bitties) constantly say how they would like to see residential townhouses go up at the stamper square plot. Ironically, this would require "spot zoning".
Secondly, if "Ed Bacon's" plan came to full fruition, their homes would of been gone, replaced by highways, yet that plot of land would still be commercial under Bacon's original concepts.
Oh, and P. Boner can keep talking at each hearing, because all he is doing is further ruining his credibility for any future zoning protests in the neighborhood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim K
I sat through all 4 hours today at City Hall. It was mostly the usual..."its too tall" and "the neighborhood is losing its say" rambling. I think there were a couple of highlights...
1. A certain SHCA board member insinuated that the current property owners at New Market are financial contributors to the campaigns of a number of council members and got this hearing as a result.....to which it seemed just about all of the council members present took offense, of course....and to which Frank calmly responded "_____ have you contributed to my campaign?".....to which the unnamed responded. "Yes". Frank smiled and moved on. I'm no expert, but when you are trying to get elected officials to listen to you, publicly accusing them of taking money for legislation isn't a wise move.
2. Another SHCA resident struggled to fight back tears and got all choked up when talking about Ed Bacon's vision and how changing the zoning of this single site would destroy the fabric of society hill and undermine the work of Ed Bacon. I could see someone breaking down if the city was trying to take his home through eminent domain or something....but not over this.
3. In the end, the amended bill passed and was referred to the full council with the unanimous support of the rules committee and will be presented at tomorrow's council meeting (I think). I think historically, if a councilman introduces a bill in his own district that gets to council it passes about 100% of the time.
It stands to reason that this could still fall apart if the historical commission gets involved. My understanding is that the historical commission has the authority to determine if it has the authority to intervene....which is ridiculous on its own....not to mention that the site itself isn't historical nor are many of the adjacent properties. I guess we will see.
At least one resident has the nerve...or maybe it is stupidity....to claim that she would rather stare at a hole in the ground. Go figure.
|
04-17-2008, 05:37 PM
