Apparently, some people think the plan commission can’t approve anything unless the developer and/or their (very nice) lobbyist agree. What? Yup, that’s what I said. Some plan commissioners think they can’t approve something unless the developer/their (very nice) lobbyist agrees.
During the discussion of the Cherokee Marsh Special Area Plan, the Friends of Cherokee Marsh came up with an alternative proposal to move some housing units to another area and preserve more open space. Their proposal came in late because they made an agreement to wait until some other things were resolved. So the proposal didn’t get alot of early discussion but several plan commissioners thought that there was some merit in the concept.
Sarah Davis and I worked with the Friends of Cherokee Marsh to come up with some language to add the general concept they were talking about to the plan for the area. They originally proposed some more specific language, but we made it more general.
I tried talking to the (very nice) lobbyist for the developer about the language, but he said his client couldn’t agree with it. So, Sarah and I proposed the language anyways, because it was so harmless. We read the language for the Plan Commission and then Ald. Golden asked the (very nice) lobbyist to come forward. He asked the (very nice) lobbyist what they thought of the language and the (very nice) lobbyist said that couldn’t agree to it. So, the entire plan commission except Sarah and I voted against the language.
What was this offensive language?
It is encouraged to maximize open space to be managed by the City Parks Department as part of the Cherokee Marsh Conservation Area. The developer is encouraged, but not required to consider selling land with a deed restriction requiring the land to be held for conservation purposes. In exchange density increases may be considered.
The reason given by some plan commissioners for voting against this language. “Negotiations are a delicate balance” and we shouldn’t mess with them. Well, why bother having a Plan Commission then? If everything gets negotiated before it gets to us, are we not allowed to change anything? Especially something that has harmless weasel language as proposed above? And what happens to groups that were left out of portions of the negotiations? Or neighbors who weren’t part of a neighborhood group? Are their voices irrelevant at the Plan Commission? Do Plan Commissioners have to be the part of negotiations and work behind the scenes (out of the public eye) if they want their own voices heard or opinions considered?
I’ve never seen a lobbyist do the equivalent of stomping their feet, and then object to being encouraged to do something that they are not required to do . . . and have the Plan Commission roll over like that. I hope Mayor Dave’s next two appointments to fill the two current vacancies have more of a backbone.
Note: This lobbyist is “nice”. I even like him. Could that have been part of the reason the Plan Commission didn’t want to vote against him?
