The Commission can either approve putting it on the ballot for November 6 or delay it up to 180 days and have a special election that will cost the City a heck of a lot of money.
November 6 is plenty of time for everyone to work the campaign, for or against. I would hope that they make the wise decision--place it on the November ballot and not cost the taxpayers money.
We shall see how frugal Scott Maxwell really is and how much he cares about his constituents. Are they going to make a handful of people in the back row happy or 1,785 people happy?
25 comments:
Blotard,Lame Duck and Mr. I Second That don't give one crap about the welfare of this city. OF COURSE they will delay this as long as possible.Pam Lopez has been beating her head against a rock trying to find SOMETHING that will get rid of this!!!so that they don't even HAVE TO HAVE IT ON TODAYS MEETING. They are bending themselves into pretzels because they just can't believe that they couldn't shove their get rich plans down the people's throats!!!Blotard,Lame Duck and Mr. I Second That know that they really messed up on this one but will be assholes to the very end.
The commission will vote to delay this. The cost of a special election is nothing when you consider the cost to the future of this city if the voters are not given the opportunity to hear all sides of this argument.
It would not surprise me if they do something stupid again.
If delayed, they will lose at the polls and we are out $30 thous.
I'm sure we all want a well informed public to voted on this ballot issue.
We want the public to hear both sides of the height issue.I signed the petition and I do not want my
signature removed.But I would like to hear from the other side.Why are they so against it.So if it takes a little longer or cost a little more,I am all for it.The most important thing is to the public know all the sides to this important issue,
You mean to say that these negative people who are for heights don't have enough time to spread their word? That is so funny.
It's not Mike Bornstein between a rock and a hard place. He is so political that it isn't funny. He could care less.
Please do not come over here and say that the PAC volunteers lied. That falsehood will not get published. Find a better argument or produce an audio or a video that proves it. I don't take kindly to people calling me a liar.
Start your opposite campaign that will allow heights to grow to 65 feet. See what it does for you.
The trio continue to perplex me. Who are they listening to that they can act the way they do? Are they that insulated?
A word of advise to the trio - Stop it! You are shooting your selves in the head!
It was really disgusting to watch (live on the computer)the disreguard for the residents from the Mayor and Maxwell and Amoroso. Amoroso looked like he was listening to an ipod. Smirking doesn't count as a non expression.
The other two seemed to have a script they were following. The same old rant from Maxwell "you've had 6 years...". Not saying that the Comp Plan was amended to 40' max in 2011. The Mayor, who knew ahead of time that a second motion was coming, got ahead of herself in referring to it!
This is, without a doubt, the worst city commission in memory.
Lynn, I never called you a liar, I said the PAC was spreading misinformation.
We got the answer. These people only care about themselves. They do not represent the people. They are listening to Lindsey, Jack Simons (frightening thought) and the rest of the gang.
Sorry, anonymous above at 6:14-- just saw your comment.
I will say this--the volunteers showed voters the petition, went over the petition language and showed them the section of the city it is going to affect.
the graphic was used once by me out of sheer annoyance that you were making a BIG DEAL OUT OF SOMETHING UNTRUE. The graphic has been explained, over and over again on this blog.
This is not about any of the silly nonsense that Maxwell wants to interject. This is about bullying and getting your way and showing people the power of elected officials who hold many of their constituents in utter distain.
I will not forget it.
Taking away your right to vote is not misinformation, the Commission never said they were going to take away any ones right to vote.
So let me get this right... The majority we elected take the advise of an advisory board and modify it.... a compromise. They could have kept the 100 foot heights and 65' downtown, but they didn't. They compromised.
The minority wanted the advisory boards decision to be the final word (which it isn't) and so they petition to have a very complex issue restricting heights in a wide swath from East to West not taking into account the existing scale of structures East of Federal placed as a Charter Amendment.
In the meantime, they verbally abuse the majority, question their intelligence, ethics, honesty and integrity but then come back to ask (demand)them to hurry the process along so that their own decision might be overturned by a polarized electorate.
With other options available to the majority, four actually, all calling for a vote of the people, they choose option 4 over option one. While a delaying tactic, surely within their right and meets all requirements and doesn't cost the city any extra money.
As I recall, this type of delaying tactic was used very successfully by the former progressive majority to the frustration of the minority.
I commented yesterday about how it was the infamous "back row" that was silent and the real rabble rousers not getting their way hurling insults and being disruptive, sitting in the middle of the room didn't get posted. While you probably won't post this comment either, it is not less true. Perspective.
Shoe on the other foot isn't as comfortable.
Please give examples of delaying tactics by the former commission.
The majority that was elected consists of ONLY three people--not the entire majority of the voters in this City. Please get this straight. They fooled a lot of people, by the way.
Option number 4 DOES cause the city extra money. This is a SPECIAL election. Even if the voters decide to move our general elections up to March, this does not take effect until March 2014.
We need honesty here--not made up- rhetoric and you name calling and use of graphics that were NOT used by the PAC other than myself who used it once when someone wanted to see what 65 feed represented. We didn't have time to stay long and chit chat.
Not sure what your shoe on the other foot alludes to but I can say that this is the most dishonest commission in the history of W that consisting of Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso.
Examples of delaying tactics by previous commission majority:
--dragging out the quasi judicial action by mulvehill's campaign contributor, Celi, on the Gulf Stream till the owner had to face a change in the market.
--everything from Infrastructure, to demanding the President to appear to Plactic bags trying to delay the new Publix--hoping they would go away.
--the sending back to P&Z of the CRA's Artist's TH Site Plan
--the 4 year delay on the Comp Plan Revision Process
--the non compliane with the Agreement to provide an Audit of the Sub Regional Sewer District Accounts Payable
--the refusal to appoint a municipal representative to the Unions Pension Boards
to name a few off the top of my head.
You guys sure take time dreaming up political bogus chit.
Your examples are totally false.
OK if you say so. Even though next March is a month that all other municipalities have elections, which is why we are moving ours to March, you say it'll still cost us $30K. I was under the impression, according to Pam Lopez, our cost would be a percentage of those already having elections. So while it would cost us something, it shouldn't cost us anywhere near $30K.
While I made the comment about delaying tactics, you asked for examples and someone else answered your questions and like always, you don't like the answers.
Whether you like the answers or not, they accurately represent just a sprinkling of the tactic you so decry now.
Sort of like how you bash the "back row" for being disruptive, when yesterday, it was the opposite, hence the shoe on the other foot.
All those little people in the back row were half way decent for a change. Big whoopie! Of curse it didn't have anything to do with the fact that they knew, as well as I, what the outcome would be from the Trio who work totally in the sunshine all of the time.
The tactics were inaccurate of which you accuse Mulvehill. Normally I would not post that here. Please keep to accuracy not smear.
Thanks.
Back when Cara was a commissioner, we used to call it "to delay is to deny".
It's good to remember these things when the shoe is on the other foot.
We actually thought it was a mantra of the progressives that permeated their political board appointments. If it is a popular benefit to the city but not in our game plan, delay it and it will most likely go away. Many times it did.
So this tactic being used against the progressives, their own tactic, isn't setting well.
That's politics. People tend to get worn down when they have to wait.
It wasn't just Mulvehill but the last majority AND their appointees.
It worked well then. It can work well now.
It is a stupid tactic no matter who does it, wouldn't you agree? I wish you would give some examples of delay tactics by Cara Jennings. Mulvehill appointed Blackman to the HRPB. She rose above petty politics voting to appoint someone who is qualified and has been one of her biggest political enemies. Let's give some credit when it is due here.
One thing about it, I will not be worn down nor will all those who petitioned. This commission did the wrong thing by the people they represent, not the 50 that have their ear.
How is what they did "working well?" It was stupid and unnecessary and makes them look like ........
7 months is a long time. But you may have something there.
Yes it is a stupid tactic. Better to "compromise".
Our representative form of democracy operates best when the two sides try to work out differences before we have to go to court, petitions, etc., don't you think?
So can we look at where compromise was attempted here?
From either side?
Not that ANYONE wanted to see 100 foot tall buildings anywhere except in the park of commerce and only if a good plan was introduced with lots of jobs created. So 100 foot buildings were nixed.
Next, the advisory board wanted the 65 foot "restriction" increased to 35. The commission could have left it at 65 feet but compromised to increase the "restriction" to 45 feet. The "restriction" here is to restrict development.
The restriction of 65 feet East of Federal was recommended to be increased to 45 feet and the commission thought that would be too restrictive. I happen to agree.
You might point out here that there was no compromise here at all.
The advisory board recommended reducing the restriction in the Park of Commerce to allow 100 foot buildings and the commission made that MORE restrictive than the advisory board recommended. I do not agree with this part of their reasoning. If a good project came in for a larger structure on the larger parcels, it would have been worth considering.
And from Dixie Hwy to A street, the commission compromised again to increase the restriction but not as restrictive as the anti development crowd. 45' instead of 35'.
Does the language in the charter amendment address the Transit Orient Development (TOD) that recommends height restrictions to residential development next to mass transit hubs to be reduced to allow higher buildings or was that left out on purpose?
Was there any attempt at compromise from the advisory board recommendations? They were recommendations weren't they? Not mandates?
What does "advisory" mean?
We found out. Maxwell gives A rat's aZz.
Post a Comment