[OldNorth] RE: [OldNorthBoard]

[John Lofland]

Dan,

Simply as a matter of fact, the measure is dead if Harrington or any 
one of the other two changes her or his vote.

This is dead level reality.

Three votes are not needed in this situation. Only one negative vote 
is required.

Check out my claim, please.

I therefore urge you to reconsider this matter.

And, for the moment, I put to the side the several other issues you address.

Thanks.

John


>Andy wrote:
>>For the Association not to take a position essentially
>>makes the Association meaningless.
>
>I must disagree with that...
>
>not taking a position means just that, we are not taking a position - at
>this time.
>
>Let me emphasize for those who don't know, I am adamantly opposed to the R2
>zoning and think we are quite dense enough. I will work for the downzoning
>to R1. I just don't think now, on this particuar vote, is a good time.
>
>For one, we would need a *unanimous* vote of the 3 council members to
>*change* this zoning. That includes Ted Puntillo.  That isn't going to
>happen.
>
>This aspect of the zoning ordinance - the R2 Consevation District - has
>been known for quite some time.
>It has always been stated (by staff such as Esther) that the issue of
>downzoning to R1 was in their view but not practical for them at this time,
>and could/would be taken up later.  But the Association and nearly all of
>its concerned members did not pursue the issue.
>
>Because this issue has been known to exist with this zoning, and because
>there have been numerous potential times for us and residents to weigh in
>on it, and because we have mostly not done so - because of all that, it
>would be in my opinion rather impolitic of us to now say, "wait, no fair!".
>I think the Association would look a little silly as a result.
>
>Far better in my opinion for us to realize that we may have missed the
>ball, and accept that we didn't voice ourselves when the opportunity was
>there.
>
>It's important to realize that nothing is lost here - at this time.
>
>Yes, we need to be heard about 'densification'. Yes, we need to address the
>R2 vs R1 issue. But I think that now is not a good time to go head-to-head
>with the Council on it.
>
>I say we revisit the issue when we have a city council where 3 of 5 members
>aren't recusing themselves - because there is no way in hell we're going to
>win with the current crew. Harrington likes infill. Puntillo is rabid about
>it. Asmundsen appears to favor it. Remember, it will take all 3 to change
>the zoning to R1.
>
>Time is on our side. Haste will gain us nothing in this one.
>
>Here's a proposal - let's send the Council this message:
>---
>We are strongly in favor of the Conservation District zoning. Let's get
>that passed.
>But the issue of zoning density - R1 vs R2 - needs to be addressed.
>Therefore, the Association will begin working with neighborhood residents
>to discuss the issue and get a sense of what the neighborhood wants. We
>look forward to working with City staff to develop appropriate zoning for
>the neighborhood.
>---
>(or words to that effect).
>
>How's that?
>
>Dan
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>oldnorth mailing list
>oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
>http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth