Just got back form a meeting called by citizens concerned about midtown redevelopment. It went very well.
I’d say about 40 people showed up. We listened to some good presentations on workforce housing. Mike Kennedy ran the meeting and did an excellent job; his folksy style came across well.
After about 45 minutes of presentations, the floor was opened up for questions. Lots of good questions. Lots of good answers. Especially lots of “We don’t know” answers. While that may frustrate some, it demonstrates that the process is working. That’s because decisions are not set in stone and apparently have not been made.
I’m proud to see this type of meeting happen. True, a citizen ignited the flame, but City Hall did not seek to put it out or ignore it. People are concerned. Heck, some of them are frightened. But the good news is that City Hall is listening and willing to invite those people into the process.
It is my high hope that this type of involvement continues.
So Dan, because I was unable to attend the meeting, what did the City say about heights, the bulk of the proposed 48 unit building, reducing parking on 4th and adding a paid parking lot?
How does the City plan to keep the 48 subsidized “workforce” housing units from being bought up and turned into profit-making rentals?
Comment by mary — July 7, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
There was nothing solid about building heights, even though one resident commented that a 4-story structure would not fit into the character of the neighborhood.
When I mentioned the 19 missing parking spaces, I was corrected that it was really 12. Then I was told by Deanna Goodlander that none of the stuff mentioned at the previous midtown/4th Street overlay meeting was set. That included the 12 missing parking spaces and the pay lot. Even so, I remember that it was brought up many times and mentioned at that meeting.
I did mention that traffic would increase on 5th and that parking would get worse, but I was shut down in what I feel was a rather abrupt manner by Deanna Goodlander and Mike Kennedy. I thought they cut me off and were argumentative instead of listening to what I had to say, as they did for others. Deanna did say later that she didn’t mean to jump on me, though she didn’t use those exact words.
The building height and design isn’t known. They know that Dick Stauffer will be designing it. But details are sketchy. I suppose one of the reasons might be that people in CdA are unused to being involved this early in the process! 🙂
Comment by Dan — July 7, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
I also felt the meeting went well.
This the first venture that LCDC has attempted in a stable established neighborhood. It is important to note that this is an issue that involves a neighborhood not simply half of a block. The potential impact that this project could have on the adjacent neighborhoods is substantial, whether it be for alteration of light and air patterns, increased twenty-four hour traffic, noise, etc., those important quality of life issues.
The man from IHFA mentioned that Dick Stauffer had submitted schematic renderings but they were not exhibited. There is concern as to the bulk and scale of the proposed project as well as the issue of diminished parking standards.
I fail to understand why the council and LCDC continues to state the notion of the importance of bringing more people to the area so that Midtown and downtown thrives. I have often questioned the basis for this notion and feel it dismisses the lives of those of us who choose to live in this area. The historical heart of town has been the major economic support of the downtown since the establishment of the city. This is a stable established neighborhood who contributes to the well being of the community in many ways.
Because this is a neighborhood issue, I hope that the next meeting will be open. I would like to see those proposed schematics as well as a virtual tour of the area indicating impact of buildings of different bulk and scale so as to inform those concderned of the possibilities of the proposed project.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — July 8, 2008 @ 6:24 am
I was disturbed by city council and LCDC member Deanna Goodlander’s quote in this morning’s Press, that the next meeting should involve only Midtown residents. Is she trying to keep others out of the meeting? Are not the citizens of the whole city paying higher taxes because of LCDC’s developments? Yes, we all are. And we all deserve to have a voice in what happens in Midtown.
This decision is important for the entire city. So keep all the meetings OPEN, Deanna.
Comment by mary — July 8, 2008 @ 8:25 am
Deanna’s comment was what prompted me to explain how this building’s footprint affects a greater area than just the residents next door. I was puzzled when Deanna wanted to have a smaller, roundtable meeting with just those homeowners. Again, it’s the us-versus-them thing, some residents get a higher level of input than others.
There were also times when Kennedy or Goodlander would ask who owned property on 4th. Granted, those people are more directly affected, but when you practice open government you must involve anyone who is interested.
I do give them credit. They’re learning. After all, remember that we’ve been told the meeting on Thursday night on the Education Corridor will not allow open questions.
Comment by Dan — July 8, 2008 @ 8:32 am
Did Kennedy really ask if anyone was recording the meeting?
Comment by Bill — July 8, 2008 @ 9:14 am
Indeed he did. He said, “Does anyone have a tape recorder? Anyone recording this meeting?” He pointed out the Press reporter, then he asked Susie and me if we had recorders. “Do you have a tape recorder, Dan? Susie?” Whether we did or not wasn’t his business. I will always answer “No” to that question whenever I’m asked.
It was also unnecessary to sign in to the meeting, though they passed around a sheet and asked people several times to sign up. Public participation doesn’t require presenting credentials.
Comment by Dan — July 8, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Actually, he didn’t ask me, I simply said no, then he said my name. The top of the sign in sheet said, “stakeholders.”
Comment by Susie Snedaker — July 8, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
I am puzzled by Kennedy’s question as to who had tape recorders; what difference would it make, unless there was a sign or announcement that no taping was allowed and I assume there wasn’t. Maybe a try of intimidation?
Comment by reddy — July 8, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
reddy,
It was a public meeting, so reporters and recorders should have been welcome. The news media and a high quality recording provide an important and historical record of what was said. Unless someone has something to hide or is trying to distract an attentive and focused audience, there is no reason to use a non-issue as a diversion.
I’d contrast Kennedy’s behavior with SD 271 Superintendent Hazel Bauman’s at the three forums she’s moderated to discuss the recent SPFL failure. I was at each forum sitting directly in front of her with my DVR clearly on the table. There has also been at least one newspaper reporter at each one. Superintendent Bauman did not call attention to my recorder or to the reporter; she just went on about the business of conducting the meetings. I’m convinced she is trying very hard to regain the public’s trust and confidence for the benefit of the students, staff, and faculty of the school district. Your guess is as good as anyone’s what Kennedy is trying to do.
Comment by Bill — July 8, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Reddy,
To the bureaucrat “the record” is everything. Absent an actual reording the minutes are “the record”. In this case, rest assured that Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Goodlander will write the minutes to reflect what they want them to. A recording, if it exists, is a serious threat. A very serious threat.
Comment by Pariah — July 8, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
The fact that someone might legally record a conversation or meeting is not the issue that should concern Mr. Kennedy. It’s the use of the recording that matters. Much like gun rights. It’s not the gun, it’s the way it’s used. If a person records a conversation with Mike Kennedy, it might be to document what Mike said, or it might be to prove what the person said or did not say. I might record a meeting to be sure any quotes I write about are accurate. It is legal and could be helpful for any or all of these reasons.
Comment by mary — July 8, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Also, if Mike is upset about the recording of Dixie shown on this web site a few days ago, I think that was taken directly from a purchased copy of the City Council meeting. Am I right about this, Bill?
Comment by mary — July 8, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
Mary,
Yes, I purchased the DVD of the November 7, 2006, City Council meeting from the City for $30 plus sales tax.
Pariah makes a very good point related to that same Council meeting: After the Council meeting following that one, I obtained a copy of the approved written Council minutes for that meeting. The approved written minutes of the November 7, 2006, Council meeting did not mention Reid’s comments admitting the violation of the Idaho Open Meeting Law. Someone reading only the written minutes and not reviewing the DVD would get a completely different picture of what transpired.
Comment by Bill — July 9, 2008 @ 7:04 am