The Royal Oak Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Smartphone / iPad users: access the forum with Tapatalk, free!    Info here

Author Topic: I wonder what would have happened...  (Read 467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BuzzBuzz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,153
I wonder what would have happened...
« on: April 10, 2019, 05:28:05 PM »

We had two successive nights of people saying bad things about the proposed development at Main and Catalpa.

My question is, what if nobody had showed up?   Commissioners had an extra-long closed session, at which (we think) they decided pressure was too high to proceed (maybe later) and the item was pulled from both Monday and Tuesday.

Monday's item might have been an violation of the Open Meetings act where the development was discussed in secret and approved the same evening, much like the surprise purchase of the Harper Furniture (city) parking lot.  Yes, the deal had been turned down in February, but what was it doing on the Tuesday agenda again.

That was particularly interesting, when Ms. Vaara kept insisting that it wasn't on the agenda, but couldn't be brought back--but it was; a particularly perceptive gentleman asked why.

I am particularly pleased that speakers are beginning to cite PUDs as bad things and I urge readers here to look up their description and use on the state web site.  (The thing is nothing more that a way to avoid zoning requirements and do things in meetings that avoid forcing issues to the harsher glare of the full Commission.)  In some cities (Warren?) to probably avoid charges of corruption.

It used to be that the chair of Planning recited what I called "the Litany" which included the solemn pledge to not do damage to the surrounding neighborhood, a part of the Planning meeting that has been conveniently left out for some years now...until the neighbors appeared en masse to remind Commissioners of this.

If the city leaves if posted, read the description of the project in which the developer sounded awfully confident of approval by the Commission for a deal on the parking lot.  I have to wonder what he thought he knew, if nobody had showed up...
Logged

BuzzBuzz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,153
Re: I wonder what would have happened...
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2019, 08:29:49 PM »

Did anybody notice who would pay for the parking deck suggested for Main and Catalpa? 
Logged

RORooster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
Re: I wonder what would have happened...
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2019, 01:58:15 PM »

We had two successive nights of people saying bad things about the proposed development at Main and Catalpa.

My question is, what if nobody had showed up?   Commissioners had an extra-long closed session, at which (we think) they decided pressure was too high to proceed (maybe later) and the item was pulled from both Monday and Tuesday.

Monday's item might have been an violation of the Open Meetings act where the development was discussed in secret and approved the same evening, much like the surprise purchase of the Harper Furniture (city) parking lot.  Yes, the deal had been turned down in February, but what was it doing on the Tuesday agenda again.

That was particularly interesting, when Ms. Vaara kept insisting that it wasn't on the agenda, but couldn't be brought back--but it was; a particularly perceptive gentleman asked why.

I am particularly pleased that speakers are beginning to cite PUDs as bad things and I urge readers here to look up their description and use on the state web site.  (The thing is nothing more that a way to avoid zoning requirements and do things in meetings that avoid forcing issues to the harsher glare of the full Commission.)  In some cities (Warren?) to probably avoid charges of corruption.

It used to be that the chair of Planning recited what I called "the Litany" which included the solemn pledge to not do damage to the surrounding neighborhood, a part of the Planning meeting that has been conveniently left out for some years now...until the neighbors appeared en masse to remind Commissioners of this.

If the city leaves if posted, read the description of the project in which the developer sounded awfully confident of approval by the Commission for a deal on the parking lot.  I have to wonder what he thought he knew if nobody had showed up...

Buzz,

There is only one person, and one person only, responsible accountable for the composition of the city agenda and that is the City Manager. The constant growth of the consent agenda is laughable, to say the least. The games both hidden and visible are starting to show the degradation of the Commission(Mayor)/City Manager and its being on a downward regressive slope. The message that the "Village Idiots", the residents and taxpayers of the city, will continue being satisfied being guided and manipulated from behind closed doors. It is becoming apparent that elected officials and administrators look at the problems the city is presently facing, their solutions and/or lack of results and make some decisions as to whether maybe its time to move on.
Much of the changes in the city is reflected in the city commission meetings. Granted the meetings were being disrupted by a small handful of people, a majority of the people were well versed and respectful of the chair. With the maneuvered use of "Coco sessions" the cities ability to reduce public comments from five to three minutes, there has been a growing rise in frustration of the public and an increase in the "Clapping" by the public. In over thirty years of attendance and as a participant in a public comment I never witnessed or heard of a pending speaker being intimidated by, clapping or booing, to deciding not to comment. I think this is more a result of the chair not being a responsible or respectful leader. Flippant boyish comments don't garner or command long time respect.
I think the "developer" has a propensity to use the same parking plan and layout that he instituted for his "Fifth Avenue" development. He seems to be instituting the plans and operational changes he's been able to gain from the city by legal or financial considerations. Did he really believe his problems were not from the table but behind it?

Rooster
       
 
Logged