Could it be because I said, "CHEESE"? NO! It's because they should be smiling. Things went very well For this group as there really is no arguing the City and Council did not follow the law as it is written. Hence the Mall Group has already refiled their case as a PRD instead of the PDD originally filed and being argued here.
Let it be known however that Paul Wilber started out by stating that "this project will not qualify uner a PRD." Uh, Oh! Looks like Wilber may have just screwed the entire project up, depending on Judge Jackson's decision.
8 comments:
Mr. Outraged, the plaintiffs have made overall growth planning a point in the Old Mall discussion, if'n ya had been payin' attention.
The "minutia," as ya call it, is more important than ya think. Fer one thing, it gave the plaintiffs just about the only avenue fer gettin' citizens heard. Fer another, if'n the poly-tishuns can kiss off the "minutia" that's the basis of zonin' and tell the citizens t'take a hike, then all yer grand plans would be tossed in the toilet, too. They ain't been stickin' to the Comprehensive Plan or the Master Plan or any plan, so what good's a plan if they write it off as "minutia"?
Ya got some good ideas, but I'm glad ya ain't in charge. Sounds like ya'd be dismissin' the citizens and the law as well.
--CD
Moistrear, ya got it. But Wilber already said what he said in court, so I don't think he gets t'take it back.
More likely, a spin'll get put on it. The ole, "What I meant, that is, in context...."
Hope "our side" gets good turnout.
--CD
Mr. A., just wanna say, nice blog here and thankee.
--CD
That's very kind of you to say CD, thank you.
Okay, Mr. Outraged, fer starters, more than one appealer and more than one citizen has made the point that they can't consider the Old Mall development in a vacuum.
The WeCare people have brought up the failures to follow the plans that are there and the need to revise the plans.
I could go on, but it's clear ya been too busy watchin' yer own film, listenin' to yerself talk and lookin' in the mirror while ya light that wind.
Otherwise, ya might know ya ain't got a lock on ideas. And by the air o' superiority that ya been setting fire to, ya sound like yer already on the City Council.
--CD
The plans I were talkin' 'bout with WeCare are them so-called Comprehensive or Master plans.
The other thing, Mr. Outraged, when yer talkin' a specific development, there's only so much time o' oaf-fish-uls' ya can take waxin' on 'bout growth in general afore they put a light t'yer rear.
Bottom line is, ya oughta get out more.
--CD
nosweat,
Lawyers are supposed to take on a certain amount of cases each year pro bono.
My suggestion is that you contact their office and ask them to do so.
You know me, I'm always one to say put your money where your mouth is. What say you Hadley?
The problem with Outraged Richard's arguments are simple:
1. He is arguing from a utopian standpoint on how the P&Z process *should* work. That is all well and good, and is excellent in the frame of a political campaign, but not here.
2. The issue here is how the current process- despite all its flaws -- was abused and ignored. *THAT* should be the immediate issue.
3. Planning and zoning decisions do not happen in a vaccum, and they shouldn't. They *always* represent a compromise between "community interests" and property rights. And this should be the case. This is imperfect, but is necessary in a democracy.
Post a Comment