Here's one cribbed from the Healthblogger's post-it note:
Despite controversy, Nassim building to open, by Amany Ali (from the Saturday edition of the New Albany Tribune).
Here are edited excerpts:
A well-known local doctor met with opposition in her attempts to expand her operation, but she has accomplished her goal and will start a new chapter … Dr. Cynthia G. Nassim, M.D. said Friday that she is excited about getting back to just practicing medicine …beginning Monday, the doctor will begin seeing patients at a much larger facility at 2305 Green Valley Road near the Ellen Court subdivision …
… She faced opposition from neighbors of the Ellen Court area who didn't think a medical facility suited their neighborhood.
Warren Nash lives on Ellen Court and is still against the medical offices at the Green Valley Road location.
"It obviously doesn't fit in with the neighborhood," Nash said. "It shouldn't have been approved."
Nash said he has already face problems exiting his neighborhood because of construction equipment. He thinks the problem will be worsened once the office opens.
Several months ago, when Dr. Nassim’s case was brought before the City Council, it prompted a famously cantankerous episode in which then-council president Bill Schmidt, also a resident of Ellen Court, at first refused to recuse himself owing to a painfully obvious conflict of interest stemming from his involvement with those in the neighborhood who opposed the project, before relenting and permitting deliberations to proceed in his absence.
Longtime community political leader, former mayor and real estate agent Nash was among those speaking against the offices, and now, perhaps a year later, his annoyance is unabated even as the medical offices are finished -- a development that can only be good for the community as a whole.
Consequently, the Nassim case has all the elements of Greek tragedy, which specializes in narratives that result in its heroes being humbled by internal contradictions.
Certainly most of us looking on at the time felt bad for the residents of Ellen Court, a quiet and well maintained older subdivision now hemmed in on most sides by commercial development along State Street. Speaking personally, I still feel bad for them. They’re solid people with nice homes, and the older homeowners certainly didn’t foresee the way that their immediate vicinity would change during their period of residence.
But it has changed … and there’s the rub.
It is indisputable that many decades of civic service and involvement have been proffered to the community by Nash and Schmidt, and to their credit.
However, it follows that their proximity to the various levers of power implies an intimate connection with the processes of local zoning and the many precedents for interpreting these processes.
The New Albany that these Democratic politicians helped to tolerate, encourage and create – sometimes purposefully, sometimes in the breach -- is the same one that ultimately generated Dr. Nassim’s presence in the council chambers, asking for zoning exceptions and considerations that have long since been regarded as reasonable in the main, and generally approved as a matter of course by men like Nash and Schmidt until brought uncomfortably close to their own backyards.
There’s no intended moral to this story, although readers are encouraged to brown-bag it and provide their own.
At the same time, it is encouraging that men like these, when faced with developments that they find disagreeable – which undoubtedly make them mad as hell – nonetheless comply with the law even when the law seems to be taunting them. They’re not donning masks, lobbing bricks, shutting down sewage facilities, breaking and entering, and making dire threats against the community that has nurtured them – their community, after all.
Then again, perhaps that is the moral.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Just as Dr. Nassim followed the process–to request variances–so did Schmitt, Nash and others in their opposition to the variances. The Planning and Zoning Board had to examine both standpoints, and they made the final determination.
That's the way the system is supposed to work, and it did in this case. That's not to say that everyone was pleased with the decision. But they should have been satisfied that the proper process was adhered to.
Precisely; all involved honored the process, and accepted the outcome. A positive message, I believe.
The original project had two identical buildings facing each other----now that the good Dr. got what she wanted---the other half of the lot is up for sale--the whole thing was a land grab of residential property so they would not have to pay the high price of commercial property in the hospital corridor.--The city council erred on this one.
We'll ignore the undocumented knowledge of the doctor's "what she wanted" aims, reiterate that the process seemed to be legal, and point out that the recently concluded baseball playoffs proved that you don't always get the calls.
If you know something the rest of us don't ...
LEGAL-yes--But the planning commission did not give the project a positive recomendation. At the city council meeting she brought in a lawyer(naville) a powerpoint presentation and some crying people on what a good doctor she was-----and the council was overpowered due to their lack of common sense---and I do remember at the meeting she was asked if she had looked at any of the commercial property in the area and she said "no". There were to be two buildings, but at the time of the meeting she did not know what the plans would be for the second except to lease--but she had no prospects---so when all is said and done---part of the project wasn't done and the property is for sale and part of the first building is up for lease. I still think the council erred here but you are right ---it was legal.
Post a Comment