Posts
Item 41 on the Jan. 23 Dallas City Council Agenda read:
“A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for a Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay (NSO) on property zoned and R-16(A) Single-Family District on properties generally bounded by, and including both sides of, Brennans Drive, Brennans Place, Dominque Drive, Dalgreen Drive and Dalgreen Circle and an ordinance granting a Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay on a portion of the requested area.”
The agenda item deals with an area just immediately west of White Rock Lake, east of Williamson and south of Mockingbird Lane, in City Council District 9 represented by Sheffie Kadane. The public hearing was designed so that those residents in that neighborhood who favored and opposed the NSO could convey their arguments to the entire City Council. At the risk of over simplification, an NSO sets certain restrictions on what can be built within its boundaries. The NSO concept was developed because of the opposition to the so-called MacMansions that were popping up in neighborhoods where they seemed out of place.
The public hearing was indeed held, but when it came down to voting for the ordinance to create the NSO, the motion to deny passed unanimously. Why? Because extensive research showed a vast majority of the neighborhood either did not understand the proposed overlay or they point blank didn’t want it. Council member Kadane suggested deferring the item until the neighborhood worked out the differences, however both the opponents and proponents declined that offer.
To put it bluntly, Mr. Kadane has subsequently been vilified by the media for his stance on this NSO. I remember talking to a dear friend the evening of Jan. 23 and during that conversation I mentioned to her that I was listening to WRR’s broadcast of the council’s proceedings and that I thought Mr. Kadane showed remarkable courage and leadership in taking a stand on the issue. It wasn’t a popular stance, however, as it allowed the current zoning to remain in tact.
Personally, I could care less whether the NSO was established. But I thought the treatment Mr. Kadane received because of his stance was one-sided and completely unfair. I felt he needed an opportunity to tell his side of the story and he graciously took the time with me to do just that.
“They (the NSO proponents) are saying they had a large margin of approval at CPC (the City Planning Commission, which recommends actions on all zoning requests before they go to the City Council). When the final tally was counted I didn’t see a number that validated approving the overlay. It wasn’t a comfortable level and I sat in my office with them and I told them very cordially ‘You need to come to me with a large majority to have a good NSO. I am not against overlays. We did the Casa Linda overlay and the same thing happened there.’
“After my colleagues had spoken I told Mr. Berube (during the public hearing) ‘Let me do away with the height regulation.’ ‘Oh, no,’ he said. ‘We can’t do without the height regulation.’ I gave him several opportunities however he would not go along with me. I suggested to both sides ‘Let’s put this off. You guys go back and talk and let’s bring it back in two weeks. Neither side wanted to postpone it.’ So I made the motion to deny the overlay.”
“There are problems with the overlay process. You have 10 people who come up front to do an overlay. That’s fine. You’ve got to start somewhere. I’m OK with that. But they go all the way through to choosing how they want the overlay to be, what they want their regulations to be before they ever go to anyone else. And that’s not good. Then they call a meeting after they’ve already set everything in stone and try to sell this to the entire neighborhood. And it’s just not working. That’s my problem with it. These overlays are to draw people together and to stabilize our neighborhoods and they are not doing that. They are disrupting the neighborhoods. We need to find a better policy to bring them together, even though I realize not everyone is going to agree.”
“They say I’m against overlays. We already have three in District 9 and more possibly to come.”
I asked him how he would change the process.
“I would change it so that the neighborhood becomes involved before it goes to (the city’s) staff. The way it works now is that the 10-person committee gets together and they pick and choose what changes they want to the neighborhood. Then it goes back to staff and when staff sends out the zoning request notices you have people in the neighborhood going ‘What’s going on? We didn’t know anything about this.’ That’s not good. They need to have a public meeting prior to going to staff to try and work out their concerns and differences. That would pull the neighborhood more together. I just don’t know that enough people are getting involved soon enough.”
“I think you have to get a lot more than a simple majority to change people’s rights. It takes 100 percent of the neighborhood to make a deed restriction, but to change property rights with an NSO only takes 51 percent (in theory).
“I also think there’s a point where a neighborhood can come together and more people can accept the changes. It takes effective communication. An approval of 51 percent from a neighborhood that only contains 90 homes reflects there are grave concerns with the overlay.
“This process can work but we’ve got to change some things.”
Does he think he’ll be able to make those changes?
“Yes. My colleagues and city staff plan to brainstorm so we can determine what changes are needed. We have received quite a few excellent suggestions from various neighborhoods and are taking these comments into consideration. When you’re changing people’s property rights, there has to be more than a 1-vote majority. There were even some on the council at the time the NSO was created who felt strongly you needed a 75 percent approval rate from the neighborhood in order to approve the overlay.
“The last two overlays in District 9 have proven that people are not going to be happy one way or another. But I think you need a far bigger majority and a lot less fighting. You’re creating neighborhoods where people are no longer talking to each other, they don’t want to see each other and that’s what I hate. I hate to see people who have lived together forever suddenly turn against each other, especially if those differences can be worked out before they escalate to this point.
“Perhaps this is a wake-up call to tell us ‘If the overlays are going to happen, let’s make sure they happen the right way’.
“Now, you should also note that I voted this down without prejudice. That means the proponents can come back to the council if they want to. If I had just voted it down, they would have had to wait two years, but I left the door open for them if they want to take advantage of that.
“These people who are criticizing what I did are good people. But these NSOs pit neighbors against neighbors. I feel bad about that end of it. Both sides are just fighting one another and I just hate to see that. They’re good neighbors. They’ve grown up together there. It’s just not right.”
What were the arguments for and against the overlay?
“The main argument against the overlay was the need to preserve the landscape of their neighborhood. Maplewood has wonderful, very large lots with many, many mature trees. The opponents pointed out that if the height restrictions were approved, home owners would have no choice but to go out instead of up. This would cause quite a few tree removals. The proponents of the overlay said they wanted to stabilize the neighborhood. They did not want any three-story houses constructed, no front garages, and they wanted to change the side-yard setbacks a little. Most of those restrictions were OK to everyone. But then they came to the height variance and what opponents were telling me was that they would not be allowed to even put 10-foot ceilings in their house or perhaps they could on one floor but not on another. It all came down to trying to change the height. The current deed restrictions call for 30-feet limitations. The NSO would have moved that back to 22 feet. I had proposed somewhere between 22 and 30 feet, but the overlay proponents said it’s not a good overlay at anything higher than 22 feet. I asked both sides to postpone the vote so they could sit down and discuss the concerns but both sides requested to move forward with the vote. This all boils down to communication. I feel the concerns could have been worked out if both sides would have taken the opportunity to sit down and discuss the options.
“In the end, I think both sides wanted to move forward, regardless of the outcome. They were tired of the stress and tired of the fighting. When you have a proposed ordinance that turns people against each other, that’s not right.”
“A public hearing to receive comments regarding an application for a Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay (NSO) on property zoned and R-16(A) Single-Family District on properties generally bounded by, and including both sides of, Brennans Drive, Brennans Place, Dominque Drive, Dalgreen Drive and Dalgreen Circle and an ordinance granting a Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay on a portion of the requested area.”
The agenda item deals with an area just immediately west of White Rock Lake, east of Williamson and south of Mockingbird Lane, in City Council District 9 represented by Sheffie Kadane. The public hearing was designed so that those residents in that neighborhood who favored and opposed the NSO could convey their arguments to the entire City Council. At the risk of over simplification, an NSO sets certain restrictions on what can be built within its boundaries. The NSO concept was developed because of the opposition to the so-called MacMansions that were popping up in neighborhoods where they seemed out of place.
The public hearing was indeed held, but when it came down to voting for the ordinance to create the NSO, the motion to deny passed unanimously. Why? Because extensive research showed a vast majority of the neighborhood either did not understand the proposed overlay or they point blank didn’t want it. Council member Kadane suggested deferring the item until the neighborhood worked out the differences, however both the opponents and proponents declined that offer.
To put it bluntly, Mr. Kadane has subsequently been vilified by the media for his stance on this NSO. I remember talking to a dear friend the evening of Jan. 23 and during that conversation I mentioned to her that I was listening to WRR’s broadcast of the council’s proceedings and that I thought Mr. Kadane showed remarkable courage and leadership in taking a stand on the issue. It wasn’t a popular stance, however, as it allowed the current zoning to remain in tact.
Personally, I could care less whether the NSO was established. But I thought the treatment Mr. Kadane received because of his stance was one-sided and completely unfair. I felt he needed an opportunity to tell his side of the story and he graciously took the time with me to do just that.
“They (the NSO proponents) are saying they had a large margin of approval at CPC (the City Planning Commission, which recommends actions on all zoning requests before they go to the City Council). When the final tally was counted I didn’t see a number that validated approving the overlay. It wasn’t a comfortable level and I sat in my office with them and I told them very cordially ‘You need to come to me with a large majority to have a good NSO. I am not against overlays. We did the Casa Linda overlay and the same thing happened there.’
“After my colleagues had spoken I told Mr. Berube (during the public hearing) ‘Let me do away with the height regulation.’ ‘Oh, no,’ he said. ‘We can’t do without the height regulation.’ I gave him several opportunities however he would not go along with me. I suggested to both sides ‘Let’s put this off. You guys go back and talk and let’s bring it back in two weeks. Neither side wanted to postpone it.’ So I made the motion to deny the overlay.”
“There are problems with the overlay process. You have 10 people who come up front to do an overlay. That’s fine. You’ve got to start somewhere. I’m OK with that. But they go all the way through to choosing how they want the overlay to be, what they want their regulations to be before they ever go to anyone else. And that’s not good. Then they call a meeting after they’ve already set everything in stone and try to sell this to the entire neighborhood. And it’s just not working. That’s my problem with it. These overlays are to draw people together and to stabilize our neighborhoods and they are not doing that. They are disrupting the neighborhoods. We need to find a better policy to bring them together, even though I realize not everyone is going to agree.”
“They say I’m against overlays. We already have three in District 9 and more possibly to come.”
I asked him how he would change the process.
“I would change it so that the neighborhood becomes involved before it goes to (the city’s) staff. The way it works now is that the 10-person committee gets together and they pick and choose what changes they want to the neighborhood. Then it goes back to staff and when staff sends out the zoning request notices you have people in the neighborhood going ‘What’s going on? We didn’t know anything about this.’ That’s not good. They need to have a public meeting prior to going to staff to try and work out their concerns and differences. That would pull the neighborhood more together. I just don’t know that enough people are getting involved soon enough.”
“I think you have to get a lot more than a simple majority to change people’s rights. It takes 100 percent of the neighborhood to make a deed restriction, but to change property rights with an NSO only takes 51 percent (in theory).
“I also think there’s a point where a neighborhood can come together and more people can accept the changes. It takes effective communication. An approval of 51 percent from a neighborhood that only contains 90 homes reflects there are grave concerns with the overlay.
“This process can work but we’ve got to change some things.”
Does he think he’ll be able to make those changes?
“Yes. My colleagues and city staff plan to brainstorm so we can determine what changes are needed. We have received quite a few excellent suggestions from various neighborhoods and are taking these comments into consideration. When you’re changing people’s property rights, there has to be more than a 1-vote majority. There were even some on the council at the time the NSO was created who felt strongly you needed a 75 percent approval rate from the neighborhood in order to approve the overlay.
“The last two overlays in District 9 have proven that people are not going to be happy one way or another. But I think you need a far bigger majority and a lot less fighting. You’re creating neighborhoods where people are no longer talking to each other, they don’t want to see each other and that’s what I hate. I hate to see people who have lived together forever suddenly turn against each other, especially if those differences can be worked out before they escalate to this point.
“Perhaps this is a wake-up call to tell us ‘If the overlays are going to happen, let’s make sure they happen the right way’.
“Now, you should also note that I voted this down without prejudice. That means the proponents can come back to the council if they want to. If I had just voted it down, they would have had to wait two years, but I left the door open for them if they want to take advantage of that.
“These people who are criticizing what I did are good people. But these NSOs pit neighbors against neighbors. I feel bad about that end of it. Both sides are just fighting one another and I just hate to see that. They’re good neighbors. They’ve grown up together there. It’s just not right.”
What were the arguments for and against the overlay?
“The main argument against the overlay was the need to preserve the landscape of their neighborhood. Maplewood has wonderful, very large lots with many, many mature trees. The opponents pointed out that if the height restrictions were approved, home owners would have no choice but to go out instead of up. This would cause quite a few tree removals. The proponents of the overlay said they wanted to stabilize the neighborhood. They did not want any three-story houses constructed, no front garages, and they wanted to change the side-yard setbacks a little. Most of those restrictions were OK to everyone. But then they came to the height variance and what opponents were telling me was that they would not be allowed to even put 10-foot ceilings in their house or perhaps they could on one floor but not on another. It all came down to trying to change the height. The current deed restrictions call for 30-feet limitations. The NSO would have moved that back to 22 feet. I had proposed somewhere between 22 and 30 feet, but the overlay proponents said it’s not a good overlay at anything higher than 22 feet. I asked both sides to postpone the vote so they could sit down and discuss the concerns but both sides requested to move forward with the vote. This all boils down to communication. I feel the concerns could have been worked out if both sides would have taken the opportunity to sit down and discuss the options.
“In the end, I think both sides wanted to move forward, regardless of the outcome. They were tired of the stress and tired of the fighting. When you have a proposed ordinance that turns people against each other, that’s not right.”
7 comments:
How refreshing for Mr. Kadane to finally speak out to our neighborhood. It’s too bad it had to be in a blog, as opposed to in direct response to e-mail inquiries from the “losing” party in the Maplewood Overlay. Nonetheless, I appreciate the acknowledgement, Sheffie.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kadane illustrates here how misinformed he is about the NSO ordinance, and specifically about the Maplewood Overlay process. To begin with, however, allow me to highlight points on which we agree:
There are problems with the overlay process. Big ones.
The initial part that only instructs a minimum of 10 people to get together and propose and overlay without neighborhood input clearly causes huge problems by immediately alienating the rest of the neighbors who weren’t consulted. Maplewood experienced this, and subsequently sent out a neighborhood survey, constructed jointly by both the supporters and the opponents of the overlay. The results of that survey were what drove the specific parameters of the second, revised NSO petitions. The proponents of the Maplewood NSO were clearly open to doing what the neighborhood wanted.
One of the other huge problems we agree on is the complete lack of clarity as to what consists of a suitable “majority” to get the NSO passed. Sheffie has used the words “large majority” and “at least 60%”, but these measurements are not binding. The NSO, as it currently stands, permits an application for an overlay with 50% neighborhood support for all NSO parameters except height (front & side setbacks, garage access, etc), and 60% is required to apply for height. Why this isn’t the hard standard for passage by the City Council, why it is “left open” for the Council to determine is unknown but it results in a fatal flaw.
The individuals on both side of the argument are good people.
Any ordinance that, by its very design, pits neighbor against neighbor is destined for failure.
Now let’s get to the crucial points on which informed folks differ with Mr. Kadane.
1. Mr. Kadane did not even consider the ordinance that was approved and sent before him by the City Planning Commission. He instead chose to look at the unmodified “rough” initial version. If he had considered the CPC version, he had 50 homes in favor, and 30 homes against. A 62.5% majority.
2. Mr. Kadane, instead of taking what was before him individually, which was 3 zoning changes under the overlay (garage placement, corner-side yard setbacks, and median height), where he had clear majority for the first two issues (see the 50% requirement to apply for those 2 parameters above), he instead chose to deny the overlay in his entirety, instead of giving the neighborhood what it wanted. Perhaps Sheffie didn’t hear the opposition’s eloquent spokesperson, Dawn Doherty, say that the opposition didn’t have a problem passing the overlay without a height requirement. Perhaps Sheffie didn’t know that he could approve 2 of the 3 stipulations. Perhaps Sheffie didn’t hear me say that, given what I had heard in the hearing, I would be willing to sit down and negotiate with the opposition (a shift in my earlier position because of the evident negative direction the hearing was going). Perhaps Mr. Kadane simply doesn’t support overlays because, as he said to Maplewood Overlay supporters the night before the Council hearing, “builders don’t like overlays”. Which begs the question – “Why does Sheffie care about what builders think? Why doesn’t he care about what Maplewood residents think?”
3. Mr. Kadane thinks he was benevolent for merely denying the overlay “without prejudice” meaning we can bring the process back to the Council inside of 2 years. But he neglects to realize that we have to start from the very beginning, gathering petitions, having public meetings, and getting not one, but two rounds of ballots signed in order to get the Maplewood NSO (in whatever revised format) back in front of the Council. It took 12 months to get that done the first time. Who want to put another year’s worth of effort into a process that enables Sheffie to arbitrarily decide whether 60% or 65% or 75% is enough support? Perhaps Mr. Kadane didn’t realize the onus of the situation – perhaps if he had, he’d have mandated a negotiating period. Instead, he ended up throwing the baby out with the bath water.
4. If Sheffie were so concerned that passing the overlay would actually cause builders to go “out instead of up”, resulting in massive tree removals, perhaps he should have considered passing the garage placement part of the overlay, since there is no way to build a garage accessed from the street without tearing through the 35-year-old live oaks that line our streets.
5. Lastly, the Council did not vote no, Sheffie did. Every single councilperson who spoke indicated their own feelings, but said that no matter what, they would support Mr. Kadane. There WAS support from some Council members (Ms. Hunt & Ms. Garcia), but they all voted in lock-step with Sheffie. Does the NSO ordinance indicate that the final decision will be made by the City Council person representing the district? I think not. But that’s how it works, and it’s one of the fundamental problems with the NSO process. Which leads me to suggest that if the Maplewood NSO had come to the Council from another District, it quite possibly could have had a different result. Not exactly proper, I should say.
6. Lastly, if Mr. Kadane & the rest of the Council have such grave concerns about the NSO process, why did they permit this NSO to come before council, and bear the brunt of the negative feelings of the group? If only 2 of the Council members support the concept of the overlay as it’s currently reflected in the NSO, then the Maplewood NSO was doomed from the start, hence the community’s request for a refund of their application fee….
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan Berube
Chair of the Maplewood Overlay Supporters
www.overlaytruth.com
I have been a proponent of many overlays, and have voted for several at the City Plan Commission level. I also signed a support petition for one before I was on the commission. Overlays can work, if done properly.
Sheffie is correct when he says that:
“Now, you should also note that I voted this down without prejudice. That means the proponents can come back to the council if they want to. If I had just voted it down, they would have had to wait two years, but I left the door open for them if they want to take advantage of that."
Sheffie deserved better than the treatment he received, for simply trying to bring people together. He smartly realizes that life goes on after an council vote and it seems like he tried to bring everyone together.
By the way..
Filing fees are refunded on the front end if an overlay has more than 75% approval on the front end, so maybe that's something to shoot for next time around.
For anyone to believe that waiting a magical 30 days would bring everyone together does not understand the overlay process. The Maplewood Overlay Process had 3times more neighborhood meetings than required and on two occasions, Ryan reached out to the opposition to discuss the overlay, but they refused due to "busy schedules." We have plenty of documentation to support our outreach efforts. All the while, the opposition flooded the neighborhood with false information, inaccurate measurement diagrams and numerous underhanded tactics. Ryan also asked Mr. Kadane point blank at the City Council meeting if the opposition had come to him upset about the height, because at no time during the 10-month process did the opposition mention height - they just didn't want ANY overlay. Mr. Kadane's answer was NO. Both sides met with Mr. Kadane at the first of January. Why didn't he initiate both sides coming together then? (3 weeks before the City Council)
It doesn't matter how much you dress it up or how much lipstick you put on it, the decision is still the proverbial pig.
As one of the organizers of the opposition to this overlay, I thought it appropriate to respond to some of the misconceptions Mr. Berube is still putting forward. I don't have time to address all of his points considering the fact that this process has already robbed all of us of too much time and energy. But to address the points per Mr. Berube's numeration:
1. With all due respect, Mr. Berube's comments are totally misleading. Yes, the vote was different before CPC vs. before Council. That's why the ordinance allows for another vote, so after people have been properly informed on both sides of the issue, they can reaffirm or change their position. Please stop skewing the truth on this issue.
2. Yes, we were willing at council to do away with the height issue if that's what had to happen to end the process. But we were against this overlay. Period. You stated clearly at council, Mr. Berube, that you would not consider passing this without the height restriction. Yes, you backtracked later, but apparently it was too late. I don't know Sheffie's reasons for just flat out denying the overlay at that point (maybe related to #4 below?), but my guess is because he's a fair guy and he recognized that even at 50% + 1 vote, there's no mandate to change a neighborhood's zoning.
3. Agreed. Please don't start the process again. It shouldn't be easy (or cheap) to propose something like this - it uses city resources (think of the time Michael Finley spent on this with you) and it eats up the personal time of all of us (proponents and opponents). And yes, there is an arbitrary component (and this needs to be fixed by city council). But Sheffie had let us all know the MINIMUM standard of 60% of the vote (see the Casa Linda outcome), and that level of support didn't exist. We understand you are frustrated (and we would be too, if we'd lost), but it's just deceptive to blame Sheffie. The opponents organized in the 11th hour and got the votes we needed. Plain and simple.
4. See #3 above. You burned bridges at council - go back and listen again - links on our website (still not on yours, though). You cut him off, spoke over him, got chided by 2 councilmembers. And you refused Sheffie's offer twice to get rid of height restrictions and/or postpone the council vote so both sides could compromise. You hung yourself. Your tact at council was a continuation of the hubris you showed during this process (like attaching a bag of popcorn to one of your flyers to the neighborhood and telling us to enjoy watching the CPC meeting on Youtube when you posted it - very neighborly to have rubbed it in our faces then). You thought it was all wrapped up and done as you walked into council - you weren’t ready for an opposition that had come together.
5. I think the record clearly states that every member voted No. It's very common that councilmembers vote with the affected district's representative on residential matters.
6. They let it go to council because they follow the law and you put it there in front of them. Please don't pass this buck - this was all you. And the fee shouldn't be refunded - huge amounts of city resources were spent on this process. There must be a monetary cost associated with this process. If it were free people could just apply again and again - none of us has time for that and it would be a huge burden on the city.
We were forced into a position to fight this overlay - none of the "opponents" had any say in the parameters of the overlay and weren't asked for input (unless you count the survey to which you keep referring which was completely flawed in its administration and interpretation). None of us knew it was going forward until zoning signs went up.
Hopefully the neighborhood can heal from this process that has ripped it apart. As I told you after CPC, I hoped when this process is over we could all just move on - we all did what we thought was best for the neighborhood and now it’s over. Unfortunately this mudslinging and distortion of facts does not promote "moving forward" or neighborhood healing. Tell the truth on this blog and on your website and let Maplewood work toward again becoming the kind of place people say it was before this overlay split it apart.
Sincerely,
Oliver Robinson
Oliver, the horse is dead, but let’s keep beating it. First of all, it wasn’t the overlay itself that “ripped” the neighborhood apart, it was flawed process and personal attacks by select individuals. It’s been nearly two weeks since Sheffie Kadane denied the Maplewood Overlay in its entirety, and Ryan continues to be unjustifiably attacked. To address your points respective of the on-going numeration:
1. I think it is funny that when someone starts a sentence with “with all due respect,” there usually never is any. Ryan was NOT referencing the vote by residents before the City Planning Commission (CPC), he was referencing the CPC commissioners’ decision to exclude Dalgreen Circle. That is the version that was given to City Council by the CPC Commissioners. Under this version, there was 62.5% support of the overlay in its entirety. You misunderstood what he was saying – There is no “skewing of the truth” here.
2. Ryan questioned Mr. Kadane why he would suggest removing height restriction when at no time during the 10-month process did you (as a self-proclaimed organizer of the opposition) come and say that you would be for the overlay without height. Case in Point: As you just posted, “But we were against this overlay. Period.” As I said before, Ryan point-blank asked Mr. Kadane if you (the opposition) had come to him objecting to height and Mr. Kadane’s answer was “No.” So why remove height then? It is a marvelous coincidence that the night before the city council meeting that Mr. Kadane commented to two Maplewood residents that “builders don’t like overlays.” It appeared as if Mr. Kadane had already made his decision. He was NOT LISTENING to the proponents - or the opposition for that matter. The audio of the Council meeting doesn’t show that. However, once the video is available, we will post it. To be technical, Ryan has never been the one considering changes to the overlay. It was a NEIGHBORHOOD vote via the neighborhood survey. Why should considerations even be made since there was 62.5% (under the CPC version) who voted on it as it was? Why was the vote of those 50 homeowners dismissed?
3. No one is “frustrated” that we “lost.” We’re shocked and outraged at the failure of democracy and the false promise of a neighborhood’s self-determination as outlined in Forward Dallas. I find it amusing that you’re defending the man and the process that you (the opposition) was so vigorously attacking in the weeks leading up to the City Council meeting – as if the opposite result at City Hall wouldn’t have resulted in the same ire from you. After hearing from the slew of groups that have been snubbed by Mr. Kadane in the short period he’s been in office, it would seem that our personal opinion of his representation is supported by many, many of his constituents.
4. As far as the “popcorn flyer,” it was my idea. I thought a little humor would be refreshing to counter the flood of offensive material from you (the opposition.) It was getting tiresome to hear how we all live in dilapidated houses. Not to mention, your version of what the flyer said in your blog posting is incorrect, as much of the information from the opposition has been. I’ll scan the full flyer in tomorrow and post it on our website www.overlaytruth.com if anyone wants to read it themselves. But in the meantime, here’s a copy and paste of the bottom half of the flyer as it is stated EXACTLY:
“Once we have the video from the planning commission hearing, we will post it on www.youtube.com , and you can hear the presentations by both the proponents and the opposition. There were 11 households represented for the opposition and 11 households represented for the supporters.
You have all seen a flurry of opposition flyers claiming that support for the overlay is waning. One favorite is a conveniently anonymous one from “your concerned neighbor” which has been concretely determined to have NOT come from a supporter who changed their mind, contrary to what it purports. In fact, support for the overlay is still well above 60%, where it’s been from the beginning of the process. For the record, we are informed and intelligent despite what you may read in the opposition’s flyers.
As the City Council meeting approaches, the next three weeks are sure to be quite a show with the opposition’s wild tales and mudslinging. We hope you enjoy the popcorn!”
(We thought we should directly respond to the underhanded letter (sent widely to elderly neighbors) and the incorrect statement in one of your previous flyers that said that only 3 supporters came to the planning commission hearing and 20 opponents came – the truth was 11 and 11.)
5. Your observation about how Council Members vote is true, though it is an important illustration of how the process is flawed. I know for a fact that had the overlay come to the Council from another district, it would have passed unanimously. That means it was truly Mr. Kadane making the decision. Where is the “fairness” in that? Also, it is virtually unheard of for the Council not to support what the CPC has put before them (62.5% of the Maplewood neighbors under that recommendation did). Why was it different in this particular case?
6. Speaking of the law, the NSO ordinance says that one can apply for an overlay for all parameters other than height with 50% neighborhood support. Why wouldn’t that apply to our other two particular parameters in the overlay (besides height?)
At the end of the day, the supporters of the overlay can be proud of their actions. Our effort was truly for the benefit of the neighborhood for the long-term. There was never any inaccurate information or bullying for votes. I also know that you didn’t experience hostile confrontations at home in front of your son, vulgarities directed at you, nor harassing phone calls at 11 pm like we experienced. I guess it is true what they say, “you are judged by the company you keep.”
Although the overlay process has flaws, they can be fixed. A neighborhood should have the right to self-determination. What the overlay did do is give Maplewood an identity. Very few even knew the name of the division we lived in. The overlay process also prompted new neighbor introductions. Many of the opposition met more people during the overlay process than in the 1, 5, and 25 years they’ve lived here.
Lastly, because you made your blog posting personal, I feel the need to defend my husband’s character. Ryan is known for being committed to what he truly believes in. Since you are new to this city, I’ll let you in on a little story. Eight months before the 1996 Olympic trials, Ryan accompanied my mom, who is a single mom, to the UVA hospital in Virginia to give support to his then girlfriend who was having a brain tumor removed by a specialist. The UVA swimming coach let him train during the day, and at night, he came back to the hospital to let my mom get some sleep and feed me ice chips and help with whatever I needed. He barely got any sleep in the single chair in the hospital room. He did this for days. He didn’t sacrifice his swimming career or his love for me. As you know, he won an Olympic gold medal as anchor leg for the 4 X 200 freestyle relay. But what you didn’t know (and clearly still don’t know) is how great a man he truly is.
The Maplewood residents should count their blessings. If the opposition is that ugly to its neighbors after they won, how bad would it have been if they had lost?
I can't let Ms. Campbell's and Ms. Berube's comments about post-Council behavior go unanswered. As far as I know, the ONLY "ugliness" in the neighborhood recently has been perpetrated by a single individual who was emphatically NOT associated with the organized opposition to the overlay. This person may have been opposed to the overlay, but was most certainly not one of "us." On the contrary, as far as I know, the personal contact between people on either side of this issue has been quite cordial. For example, my husband and I have had pleasant and friendly conversations with our next door neighbors about putting this all behind us, and I understand that others have had similarly pleasant experiences with other neighbors. With the exception of one neighborhood crackpot, I think the rest of us can agree to disagree, move on, and be good neighbors.
Post a Comment