I recall one of the many battles of the majority of the community had with the 'majority council' on the Hall Park. James Bond stated, "In the end, we will do what we want." They wanted a Special Use Sports Park.This General Plan Draft reflects this philosophy.This evening at 6pm, there will be a special council meeting to address filling the vacency on council. It will not be televised. It is expected that a video that Maggie made will be shown that addresses her wishes in this matter.If you feel that there is a strangle hold on our city because of the council majority, "doing what we want", and want better, please attend this meeting.Maggie would want you there.
I'm assuming the GP public process was used to determine that the public wants/wanted a special use sports park for the Hall park?
Yes, a public, documented process was used twice and ignored.The boys did what THEY wanted and injected a project design guideline to "...maximize sports fields.", without public input.
"This General Plan Draft reflects this philosophy... A public, documented process was used twice and ignored."I'm confused. Is general plan draft a reflection of the public input or not? It sounds like you are saying it is not.Regarding the Hall park approval:Didn't the public have opportunity to speak to the design guidelines?
To clarify:i believe that the general plan update has been very well publicized and there has been a lot of public particapation, as was the case in the Hall property.I saw the majority opinion ignored in the Hall property and I fear that the majority council will 'do what they want', regardless of the public opinion.We saw this on the Cardiff Specific Plan also.I wish that there could be trust in our local government that they would act on the principal of the best for the most.Alas, too often this seems not to be the case.
Was the Hall park public participation meaningful in the end? What is different in the current process to make sure the public's participation is meaningful.As for the Hall park, if the public didn't want what they did how come they majority keeps basing their election on their plan for a park and winning elections?Just cuz you fill a room full of people doesn't mean it is a good process. Most of those people have little idea how many questions are going unanswered and the process is set up to keep those people from finding out. The city will not allow questions to be asked in front of the whole audience. Divide and conquer.
Was the Hall park public participation meaningful in the end? What is different in the current process to make sure the public's participation is meaningful.As for the Hall park, if the public didn't want what they did how come the majority keeps basing their elections on their plan for a park and winning elections?Just cuz you fill a room full of people doesn't mean it is a good process. Most of those people have little idea how many questions are going unanswered and the process is clearly set up to keep those people from finding out. The city will not allow questions to be asked in front of the whole audience. Divide and conquer.Where can we find the city's responses to questions and comments and suggestions of the people participating? Are those all online someplace that we can link to? I have not heard them discussed at the meetings.
The reason that a minority has had more influence that the majority, in the case of the Hall Property, is that at council meetings the public input, which was pro- community park and anti-regional sports park, was ignored. As a voting block, the organized sports leagues have the most effective email/mailing list political weapon.The sports leagues hand out political information at games. Add to this, Rotary, that sponsor teams and the biggest soccer tourney in the city.They have far more power than the caring, less organized citizens that do not have anything like the tools that the sports leagues weld.
Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog. Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.The moderator works at his leisure.