See it was back on the agenda last night. Follows with how they voted the last time, no one voted yes and no one voted no.
Wonder how much the plan changed.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Costello Office Hours
Call to schedule if you'd like.
All during the day so working people can take some time off work and voice their concerns to what I feel are deaf ears. Town hall forums, later office hours, anything of the sort?, nope.
All during the day so working people can take some time off work and voice their concerns to what I feel are deaf ears. Town hall forums, later office hours, anything of the sort?, nope.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Columbia Lakes
I went to the council committee meetings last night in order to present some information for the library board. I did get to sit through another round of Columbia Lakes discussion while waiting for my meeting to begin.
In the end the council seemed against the CUP. The Mayor noted the criteria in the CUP citing something along the lines of "promoting the moral well being of the citizens". The motion was made to approve the CUP by Aldermen Ebersohl if I remember correctly and that motion died on a lack of second. After a few more comments Aldermen Huch made a motion to not approve the CUP as presented, it also died on a lack of second.
The crowd, mainly consisting of Columbia Lakes residents, seemed happy with the results. I think the coucil was trying to do a couple things last night.
The real estate broker representing the developer was sort of called out for "threatening" that R-7 is a real possibility, I feel that's a real shame since he is also a resident of Columbia Lakes. I think the city once again proved unable to work with a developer. They asked the developer to change some things and he did, the developer had worked from what I saw very hard to meet whatever concerns the city and the residents had (tree lines, fences, use of amenities, open to suggestions of any kind, assurances there would be no section eight housing, assurances to sell as a preference to leasing)
The people in Columbia Lakes all seemed very willing to "gamble" that no developer will come in and just build to the R-7 restrictions. If/When the property gets cheap enough someone may do just that and there will be nothing to stop that from happening.
I was glad to see the school district voice a request for some money from the developer to offset the increase in residents. I still cannot figure out why the school district and the city seem to never talk to each other, maybe we should open that channel of communication a little more.
In the end the council seemed against the CUP. The Mayor noted the criteria in the CUP citing something along the lines of "promoting the moral well being of the citizens". The motion was made to approve the CUP by Aldermen Ebersohl if I remember correctly and that motion died on a lack of second. After a few more comments Aldermen Huch made a motion to not approve the CUP as presented, it also died on a lack of second.
The crowd, mainly consisting of Columbia Lakes residents, seemed happy with the results. I think the coucil was trying to do a couple things last night.
- Work to keep the public happy, which it seems it accomplished, for now at least.
- Keep the city out of a lawsuit, by neither voting for or against the CUP the city has in fact set it aside and is simply saying they are not interested in it as presented. The trouble with that is they were interested as recent as a few weeks ago, until people started calling them. The plan was approved by I think the zoning board of appeals, so it had traction for being accepted.
- By not approving or disapproving they leave the option open for the developer to come back and tweak the plan and try to get it approved again.
The real estate broker representing the developer was sort of called out for "threatening" that R-7 is a real possibility, I feel that's a real shame since he is also a resident of Columbia Lakes. I think the city once again proved unable to work with a developer. They asked the developer to change some things and he did, the developer had worked from what I saw very hard to meet whatever concerns the city and the residents had (tree lines, fences, use of amenities, open to suggestions of any kind, assurances there would be no section eight housing, assurances to sell as a preference to leasing)
The people in Columbia Lakes all seemed very willing to "gamble" that no developer will come in and just build to the R-7 restrictions. If/When the property gets cheap enough someone may do just that and there will be nothing to stop that from happening.
I was glad to see the school district voice a request for some money from the developer to offset the increase in residents. I still cannot figure out why the school district and the city seem to never talk to each other, maybe we should open that channel of communication a little more.
How would I feel if I owned a house backed up to the proposed CUP?
Would I want the proposed CUP built behind my house? Probably not.Would I want R-7 built directly behind my house? Definitely not and I'm normally not a betting man.
Would I want the proposed CUP built behind my house? Probably not.Would I want R-7 built directly behind my house? Definitely not and I'm normally not a betting man.
Monday, August 08, 2011
Jerry Costello
Have you ever tried to get an actual answer from your Congressmen? I have and its really not possible, unless you know them in their personnel life or are a hefty campaign contributor. I had attempted to contact Congressmen Costello back in August of '09 with general questions regarding the then hot topic of government health care. I received back an email from "Jerry" that contained in Jerry's words, "a brief summary of questions and suggestions I have received."
Number six was my least favorite.
The issue I have is that Costello had been in Congress for just over twenty years when this email was sent out. That works out to about twenty meetings a year. It is important to note that he sent this email out when the "Tea Party" was forming and town hall meetings that showed political figures giving no answer or bad answers to questions were the news story of the day, I could understand his hesitation to these meetings then but its time to stop hiding.
I can't think of another word to use other than hiding. Its time to come home, stand for your actions, and listen to people who may or may not agree with you. I'd have to think that a congressmen would want to come back to their district and gain as much information as they could. At $175,000/year we should get a couple of meetings while he's not in Washington.
Try not to pigeon hole me into a political party when you read this post. I have voted for people in both political parties. I have voted both Democrat and Republican in primary elections. I am losing my faith in both parties and fully understand that neither truly reflects my beliefs. This is not a slam towards Congressmen Costello on the basis of his party but due to his reluctance to face his constituents. I'd like to see what he's planning for us since so far the only person I can see that is planning on running against him is good ole' Terri Davis Newman........,on that note I'm done for the day.
Number six was my least favorite.
6.Why are you not holding town meetings?
I have held over 400 town meetings since I have been in Congress. In the beginning, the town meeting forum was productive. Unfortunately, they became unproductive for almost everyone in attendance when a few people traveled from meeting to meeting in order to dominate the time with their one issue; therefore I stopped holding town hall meetings a few years ago.
The issue I have is that Costello had been in Congress for just over twenty years when this email was sent out. That works out to about twenty meetings a year. It is important to note that he sent this email out when the "Tea Party" was forming and town hall meetings that showed political figures giving no answer or bad answers to questions were the news story of the day, I could understand his hesitation to these meetings then but its time to stop hiding.
I can't think of another word to use other than hiding. Its time to come home, stand for your actions, and listen to people who may or may not agree with you. I'd have to think that a congressmen would want to come back to their district and gain as much information as they could. At $175,000/year we should get a couple of meetings while he's not in Washington.
Try not to pigeon hole me into a political party when you read this post. I have voted for people in both political parties. I have voted both Democrat and Republican in primary elections. I am losing my faith in both parties and fully understand that neither truly reflects my beliefs. This is not a slam towards Congressmen Costello on the basis of his party but due to his reluctance to face his constituents. I'd like to see what he's planning for us since so far the only person I can see that is planning on running against him is good ole' Terri Davis Newman........,on that note I'm done for the day.
Monday, August 01, 2011
Columbia Lakes
I received pdf copies of eight sets of meeting minutes from 2004 and 2005 regarding the then Columbia Lakes CUP discussions.
I read through them and didn't see the vote that actually put a stop to the development moving forward. I'm still of the belief that the CUP provides "the best, worst case scenario", unless you want to gamble.
I think that is a possible course of action that makes sense if the city can find a way to deny the CUP in a legal way. If developing that land under R-7 was profitable, it may have already been done.
I read through them and didn't see the vote that actually put a stop to the development moving forward. I'm still of the belief that the CUP provides "the best, worst case scenario", unless you want to gamble.
Aldermen Row said that the site could be built out with a lot of apartments if the CUP was not approved. Aldermen Unnerstall said he was willing to take that gamble, and he also mentioned that if the developers were required to follow the R-7 code without any variances, it could be cost prohibitive for them to proceed. - Page 3, Minutes of the Meeting of the Ordinance Committee held July 26, 2004.
I think that is a possible course of action that makes sense if the city can find a way to deny the CUP in a legal way. If developing that land under R-7 was profitable, it may have already been done.