Monday, October 10, 2005

LPDS (no creative title this time)

Another editorial in the ABH on LPDS. It does a good job of laying out once again all of States' ridiculous shenanigans last week and how silly he looks. However, it basically ends up saying that this behavior is bad for his constituents because he can't be taken seriously on the LPDS issue, and that therefore he can't do his job for them (which apparently, in the opinion of this editorial, is to keep LPDS from happening). Using that rationale, I'd say he's doing his constituents a great service by ensuring that the LPDS opposition can't be taken seriously.

Way to go, Lameduck Yosemite.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

You have a nice site with entertaining information. Several of my neighbors told me about it.

I am curious about the information you have gathered about the Cedar Creek homeowners association. I have been a member for many years and know that the majority of my neighbors are opposed to this rezoning. The board has also been fair in their approach of us but that is not what gets into the press. Certainly States' actions are unfortunate and not indicative of the homeowner association's rational conclusions. Hopefully he has not jeopordized some logical concerns.

But have you or the ABH contacted any of the board members directly? It seems like a tale of 2 stories.

Publius said...

As to your question, no, we haven't been in touch with the Homeowner's Association over there, although the internet does work two ways.

As to the ABH, I'm not sure what angles they're researching, but I would assume, knowing the usual professionalism of their staff, that they've at least attempted to contact the Association.

But, since you've reached out to us here, what are your legitimate concerns? Of course, we're going to try to convert you, but we would like to hear what the neighborhoods are saying. (as, we imagine, would the LPDS team)

Obviously, the people who put out this blog are LPDS partisans, and one reason why we are is because the LPDS folks have been transparent in their approach, and have solicited community input. My understanding is that they've also modified the plans based on the input they've received. (Try getting that from most Athens developers.)

RandomThoughts said...

Anonymous should be congratulated for his/her input. Non-confrontational and very professional. I sincerely hope that more insight will be forthcoming from this person. What this issue needs is rational discussion. I applaude his/her as well as the Athens Politics staff for their response.

This is Community Action at its best.

andyrusk said...

Anybody else think State's McCarter might be a vampire?
Kinda adds up, eh?

hillary said...

It was daylight when he knocked on my door once upon a time, but maybe he has really strong sunscreen.

monticello_pres said...

Thank you for your response and comments. No longer anonymous - I think that I successfully created a blog ID monticello_pres.

I also appreciate your opinions and certainly agree with many of your points. I am certainly someone who feels that government, generally, and our commission, specifically, intrudes too deeply into the affairs of business. But I also feel very strongly about community zoning and believe that disciplined and prudent zoning is one necessity of a thriving community.

Chief concern of the CCCA board has been this topic exactly - zoning. This property was rezoned once already, as I am told, and CCCA was supportive of this previous C-O (PD) zoning. Ironically, this was necessary to allow Cofers to exist as it did for a short life on the east side.

Among the specific concerns (and opposition) for this rezoning is the amount of vacant and available space, appropriately zoned, on the east side. It is frustrating to see so many C-N vacancies (with many more C-N structures on the way) and have a lesser commercial structure requested for rezone. At some point, isn't enough enough?

There is a tremendous and unfortunate amount of disinformation on both sides. Only one side appears to make it to ABH print. No need to try and force 2 rights to make a wrong, so I won't propogate rumors from "the other side" here. But suffice to say that not everything printed by the ABH has been accurately portrayed. And, in the end, the bottom line is that over 925 east side residents (including Cedar Creek, Green Acres, Springlake, Cedar Shoals Drive, Morningside, etc.) have intellegently and intentionally signed a petition in opposition of another rezoning of this property. These are vested property owners and east side residents with long-term ties to the area.

Are there zealous radicals in the opposition? Unfortunately, yes. Has bullying occured? It may have by an unfortunate few. Does that endanger the opposition's credibility? I hope that is yet to be decided.

But is the LPDS group spotlessly innocent in their strategy, communications, and efforts regarding the specific community to be affected? I don't think so.

I've taken up too much space. Conclusion... thank you for the ability to air this information unbiased. This is obviously not a CCCA or "officially" endorsed rant. Just the observations of someone involved in the process.

And even though we may have differing viewpoints on this topic, I enjoy your site and appreciate your efforts with it. Keep up the good work.