At tonight’s city council meeting, the Riverfront Development Project Area ordinance passed second and third readings with no dissent, and although a much discussed city attorney ordinance was on the agenda, it was unceremoniously pulled from view and not considered.
Rather, the bulk of the meeting was given over to public discussion time, which centered on widespread, passionate and articulate neighborhood opposition to the Bridgewater Condominium development off Daisy Lane. A decision on the project was deferred when Bridgewater’s developer asked for it to be tabled until the next council session.
If you were there tonight and care to begin a thread about any of the meeting’s themes, please do so, subject of course to the usual guidelines.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Kudos to parties on both sides of the condo issue for handling their public statements admirably. I kept thinking of their common theme: Whether they realized it or not, everybody was actually advocating for efficient public transportation.
At least three of the speakers who were against the condo development brought up the point that when downtown is in such need of revitalization, projects like Bridgewater are not proposed for downtown.
Now, granted, there's a bit of the chicken and egg in this, and we've learned that a major reason why developers don't work downtown is that 50 years of slum lord support programs have deprived the land of value sufficient to turn a profit.
But no one was able to convey this explanation to the sincere people in attendance last night. Just imagine if the same people might be convinced to attend neighborhood forums and be involved prior to mobilizing to fight something in their own backyards.
That calls for a long, knowing, "sighhhhh."
"Whether they realized it or not, everybody was actually advocating for
**efficient public transportation." Bluegill
Are there actually efficient public transportation ideas in play here at the local level? I thought public transportation ended with the streetcars in New Albany. I've only seen TARC buses in town as goes public transportation. What do you mean by this statement bluegill? thanks
What I meant was that there should be public transportation in play as there seems to be agreement in everyone's expressions of both the need for increased transportation and exasperation with the current auto-centered model.
Having spent the better part of my youth watching my natural playground become suburbs (my NA grandfather used to refer to Charlestown Road as the Daniel Boone Trail), I feel for the residents in the Daisy Lane area. Bigger roads, though, are a justification for even more cars. They may want to reconsider what they're really asking for because what they want seems different.
Given our aging demographic and a whole host of other environmental and economic factors, the need for high density, in-town living space is increasing and will only continue to do so. The condo developers are right about that. The residents are right about the need for infrastructure to handle it. Assuming that infrastructure automatically equates to roads, though, is what got us in this mess to being with.
Based on your web persona thus far, I assume I'm preaching to the choir. There's indeed a growing constituency in the region for rethinking transporation beyond dinosaurmobiles. Admittedly, it's mostly Louisville focused and hasn't reached critical mass yet but, hey, you may be the tipping point. Here are some links (sorry for the crappy cut and paste):
TARC's initial light rail plan
http://www.lightrail.com/maps/louisville/louisville.htm
http://cartky.org/
http://8664.org/
Most New Albany discussions have been focused on bicycle and pedestrian traffic, particularly with regard to downtown and the Greenway. It's interesting to note, though, that light rail plans, including southern Indiana, were being made as early as the late 60s. One such study is available in the Indiana Room at the library. It's worth a look.
As the New Albanian points out, I'm sure we downtowners have concerns in common with our neighbors to the north. Ideas about the benefits of alternative transportation, even if not expressed as exactly that, may very well be amongst them.
Take no offense, but everyone can use a refresher:
When you have a URL you want to share, like
http://cartky.org/
or
http://www.lightrail.com/maps/louisville/louisville.htm
or
http://8664.org/
you can precede the url with the following:
an opening bracket (<) and then A HREF="http://8664.org" and then a closing bracket (>).
Next, type the text describing the site (a title, the actual URL in text, or just CLICK HERE).
Close the whole thing with an opening bracket (<), a backslash (/), the letter a (a), and a closing bracket (>).
8664.org
Light Rail Maps
http://cartky.org
No offense taken. I was just in a rush. Thanks for the follow up.
I thought not of you, Bluegill, but of several others who might find the tip useful.
I recall no discussion, Tim, of the Stormwater ordinance.
Post a Comment