We'll try our best to report how we could have voted after each city council meeting. As more "shadows" join us, we'll see to it that those "votes" are recorded too. Until then, we'll "cast" our votes on each issue and compare it to the votes of the D5 incumbent, Diane Benedetti.
Election of officers
S5 - Messer for president; D5 - Gahan for president.
S5 - Messer for vice president; D5 - Coffey for vice president.
Gahan's election was a jarring development. All who allied themselves with Mr. Coffey should be ashamed of themselves. The very best face that can be put on it is that Gahan was a compromise candidate, but that compromise was with Coffey and his protege. Mr. McLaughlin's vote was a severe disappointment. That D5 took her lead from Coffey was not totally unexpected. Mrs. Benedetti did not distinguish herself. She did not serve her district's interests.
R-08-01
Transfer of funds from various departments to pay for new "concentrated code enforcement" officer, deputy director of operations, two deputy mayors, and creation of new post of public works coordinator.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye.
S5 actually believed that the Garner administration needed at least one more professional on the mayoral staff and this realignment of salaries fits that bill for the England regime. We've previously commented on the sleight-of-hand and rhetorical flourish in the way it was presented and would have made sure that the record reflected that the council was not fooled by the attempted prestidigitation. Nonetheless, our vote would have been aye.
A-08-01
Salary appropriations for city administration
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye.
Z-08-01
Approval of a zoning change for a parcel on the east side of Grant Line Road, north of the Lee Hamilton Highway (presumed to be a drive-through coffee shop and mini-storage warehouses)
S5 - Aye; D5 - Aye.
Not my idea of progress, but a perfectly lawful use for the land, no matter how unappealing. Building "out" should bear a higher cost than investment in the city's core, however that might be designated.
Z-07-22
Approval of a zoning change (PUDD) for a plot on Charlestown Road opposite the Kroger store. McCartin development would include two restaurants, a bank, a coffee shop, and a sandwich shop on the C-Town Rd. frontage, backed by 87 patio homes and apartments. This was approved by the Plan Commission with 27 conditions.
S5 - Aye; D5 - Nay, along with all members.
While we can reliably be counted on to resist what "The Gary" believes constitutes responsible development, the planning staff made a good case that this particular development constituted building "in" relative to many other proposals, and that such should be encouraged. A close call, but S5 would have acceded to the recommendation of the Plan Commission while laying the groundwork for a council policy statement that would impose impact fees on developments outside the urban enterprise zone. D5 has drawn criticism for even voting on her brother's submission. We believe Benedetti should have recused herself, although a scenario can be constructed whereby even a recusal could have been a conflict of interest. Brandon Smith's suggestion that she absent herself from the room seems to be the best compromise on this one for the incumbent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"...the planning staff made a good case that this particular development constituted building "in" relative to many other proposals, and that such should be encouraged."
I assume that I am being more dense than usual but would you explain this statement a little more fully? "in"?
Thanks
It is nuanced, but I believe sincere, when John Rosenbarger addresses the matter. John's idea of smart growth isn't as radical as some progressives would like, but his is a rational argument.
Building in is the opposite of building out. Investing in downtown is building in. Investing outside the Interstate is building out. Somewhere in between is John's idea of smart growth.
Last year, he talked about traffic impact, for example. Using a multiplier of car-miles, he implied that building there wouldn't add to C-Town Rd. traffic - it might actually cause more cars to travel fewer miles.
Citizen A might want to see a vacant block downtown developed with patio homes, apartments, and commercial. Citizen B might settle for having the old Walgreen building restored to a good use. And Citizen M might think smart growth is anything that makes a profit in the short-term. Remember, McCartin hasn't been able to hold onto many of his developments. He builds, cashes out (or bankrupts), and moves to the next target.
Nothing wrong with that, but we're hoping that such a mindset is encouraged to look elsewhere. An economic/environmental/sustainability impact fee ought to be placed on development outside the doughnut, with subsidies for "preferred" development and restoration.
It does matter where you draw the line. For CtR, is the line Slate Run? Silver? Vincennes?
For Grant Line Road, is it Daisy? McDonald? University Woods? or outside the beltway?
Except on an emotional level, an autonomic response to the word/idea "McCartin," I was willing to be persuaded. I think the Plan Commission was and often is treated as a nonentity on these matters. If the PC approved it, and I think I remember it was unanimous, maybe there's something to the idea.
Ultimately, we want the city to encourage the filling of the doughnut hole. You've been around long enough to think of that area as the boonies. For me, it's where we buy our groceries. Too far out for my tastes, but the nearest full-service grocery to those of us in the eastern part of the city. That area is "in" compared to some other areas. Dat's all I'm saying. Instead of luring residential growth outward, it is building where the people already are.
I'm not wedded to the idea, but I think I would have voted for the PUDD.
Thanks. I was guessing that "in" was what you described but wanted to know for sure. Sometimes guessing just doesn't cut it. I would have had to know much more before I could have voted on it but agree that the plan commission votes should be taken a little more seriously.
Also, even though you wrote that you would have voted for it, am I not allowed a coffee shop close to me? Not your idea of progress?(the Grant Line road zoning)
Also, even though you wrote that you would have voted for it, am I not allowed a coffee shop close to me?
Only if someone runs the coffee shop right.
IAH: I, too, would have needed to know more about it, but then, as I am only a shadow, no one is motivated to seek my support outside of public comments. Further, I don't have the ability to ask pointed questions during the meeting itself.
As time goes on, that will create some issues where a "vote" might be tricky. But then, as a friend said recently, if Dan Coffey is for it, that's a warning signal.
NA,
Correct, as usual. I have a well run pub and a well run Mexican restaurant close to me. The proposed coffee shop would be equidistant for me. The only difference being that it is JUST outside the beltway instead of JUST inside.
I know it is a chain but the shops are well run with knowledgeable staffers. Beats a poorly run local shop any day.
Post a Comment