Inanities Abound Tonight

It ought to be a rollicking affair tonight with grandstanding galore.

We won't address the substance of two pieces of legislation before the council tonight, but we invite you to explore how inartfully they are drawn.

First up is Mr. Coffey's "resolution" to declare the blocks around his house as a permanent reserve for homeowners. Self-styled West Enders have held out gallantly ever since the Interstate highway condemnations separated them from downtown. The triangle of about 13 small blocks would, under this "resolution," be declared a no-man's land for business development. Take a look at the area on a satellite map below or at this link.


View Larger Map

But what is being presented as R-08-33 is a muddled petition, not a resolution, signed by 13 residents of the area to be preserved or hindered by a rezoning. It's doubtful anyone would object to a rezoning - except for those precise property owners now negotiating with a developer to sell their land for a mixed-use project that could well increase the value of the entire West End, enriching its residents and its property owners in more ways than one. But it would create, at least, a temporary impediment to one variety of "progress." I suppose a property owner could easily petition to have the zoning modified again by PUDD application, but this seems to be an awkward way to approach things. For your edification, here is the text of the agenda item:

After many years of rumor and confusion, the people living in said areas ask that a zoning change take place to protect our neighborhood. Boundaries are hereby described: West 4th Street west to west 10th Street and Falling Run Creek south to Main Street. This will not include the properties of: Main Street, or the properties between West 4th Street and West 5th Street. The new zoning will not affect existing businesses and allows their current zoning to be maintained. Proposed zoning will be RN1, Neighborhood Residential. This zoning is designated for higher-density single-family development and and two- family dwellings where approved through conditional use.

The signatures of 8 people are attached, including Mrs. Councilman Coffey, and five others have their names and addresses affixed.

Again, though there is no expectation that anyone will object tonight, it sure would be interesting to know what kinds of rumors and confusion prompted this eleventh-hour measure.

I'll let you read the "Novelty Lighter" ordinance for yourself. Mrs. McCartin-Benedetti has drafted/presented an more formal document, but it utterly fails as a piece of enforceable legislation. Once a citation is made under it, a first-year law student will be able to declaw the ordinance as it is currently written.