Richard Alexander, a member of the team of developers of Southpass: 15 angry, threatening minutes in the PUBLIC-COMMENT Period.
Aubrey Shepherd, a member of the south Fayetteville poor folk's society: Barely five minutes of fact-based reporting of real-world experience with the approval of projects that don't follow specifications or ignore promises of developers trying to get approval.
Aren't the developers supposed to get in their comments during the developers' presentation and leave the public-comment for the residents of the city?
It is bad enough that the council members or the mayor invites developers back to the podium to answer questions raised by the public without a chance for the public to continue the dialogue. But allowing developers to comment as though they were members of the public rather than the very developers whose unwanted projects are being discussed to comment during the public forum is unconscionable.
Who else's concerns were ignored or explained away as almost irrelevant?
Jeff Erf brought up fact-based concerns and Alexander got in two or three minutes sharing the podium to try to rebut Erf.
Barbara Moorman who got only a half-heartedly polite "Thanks, Barbara" after pouring out her heartfelt but factual knowledge of Kessler Mountain and the harm that a carelessly controlled Southpass development could do.
Gotta love city council meetings and the Fayetteville government channel for providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of them. FGC, more than your mayor's self-promoting public-relations outlet. The only media outlet in Northwest Arkansas that provides a wide-ranging view of what goes on and the real basis for deciding how to vote in local elections.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
And what you describe is what happened WHEN PUBLIC COMMENT was entertained.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT was allowed for the items involving Victory Commons, just a dialog with developer Tracy Haskins, who also got a pass.
Aubrey's comments at City Council (about the City's inability or refusal to control damage to trees, wetlands, etc. during construction) were accurate, to the point, and sorely needed but got little respect from some aldermen and downright disrespect from the unjustifiably arrogant Rhoads. Check the video on accessfayetteville. This may be the thousandth time in CE (Coody Era) that citizens have been cut short when trying to say something relevant to the public good. I wish someone with the stomach for it would tally up the time given to consultant claptrap and developer preening and puffing at the love-ins. And that was quite a speech Adella had memorized and held ready to lob -- 100% off-topic -- into a discussion she didn't like. No reprimand forthcoming for that one.
This is typical of the coody way of presiding over meetings. He will let his buddies comment and rebut all they like, but citizens get the timeout symbol, told to hurry it up, and have the cops called to remove them.
Time for a change
Time for Jordan
Time to take back our city
Aubrey got up and started talking about what he thought was going wrong on Hill Place which has nothing to do with Southpass. He is extremely biased and extremely anti growth as are most of the people who comment on this site. I would guess that everyone who reads this blog lives in a house in subdivision that was once either forest or native prairie. Aubrey himself lives in a house that most likely sites on top of a wetland. He himself smokes cigarettes. where do you think the tobacco comes from and how many chemicals does it take to grow tobacco? All of you drive cars that pollute the air and causes global warming, correct?? It is my contention that all you anti-growth people are just a bunch of hypocrites.
8;40, aka who?
We aren't anti-growth, but growth is not being managed and supervised well at the moment. The point was clear to those who listened: Who will oversee construction of the Southpass project to see that nothing similar to Aspen Ridge ever happens there?
It would be nice to hear support from public officials and developers alike for adding more city inspectors, even if it means higher impact fees.
There is no way to pretend that more expensive housing is needed in our city and there is no place in the four-county area to bury more garbage.
A lot of changes have to be made in order to accommodate even really sound projects.
Very few current residents benefit from growth and many are harmed directly by poorly planned and poorly executed projects.
Better jobs for existing residents are needed more than expensive housing.
Plenty of people need homes that rent for $400 a month or sell for $40,000.
Tearing down even marginally usable houses or getting rid of mobile-home parks doesn't benefit those who do the most basic kinds of work or those facing retirement on Social Security.
No need for you to sound heartless just because you directly benefit from growth at any cost.
Post a Comment