[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 10/14/02 1:54:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> Our public meeting will be soon enough > > Just what we need! Another small group that operates behind closed > doors and sets its own ground rules for "public meetings" that look > like a way to stall, then claims to represent the community at large.
And which group is this, Al? As far as I can see, we're being exceptionally open about our efforts. We've worked up a proposal. Did we run to the city to have it made into law? Did we avoid public discussion before acting upon it? Did we present it as a done deal, leaving our neighbors with only the option of understanding and obeying the rules? No. We made it available to the public, and asked for feedback. We're also working on holding a public meeting so that our neighbors can offer debate and make suggestions. This will _not_ be a repeat of the public meeting of last April, which was limited to laying down the law and allowing a few questions: this will be a meeting to _shape_ the HD itself. If Spruce Hill is to have an Historic District, then it ought to be one that is shaped by the neighborhood of Spruce Hill. But I feel the need to vent, and I will. Al's ranting about "small groups" and "behind closed doors" reflects one simple fact: we didn't consult with Al about this. There was a very good reason for this. Time and time again, Al has said that he is opposed to _any_ kind of Historic District for Spruce Hill. And when Sharrieff and I began working to form the SHNA, he was adamant about not wanting another neighborhood group. So, for all intents and purposes, we _did_ have Al's input on the proposal; his input was that he wanted no part of it. Between this, and other issues, it was obvious to us that any further consultation with Mr. Krigman would have been utterly pointless. I'd like to announce that Al's complaints rest upon a massive fallacy. While Sharrieff and I were canvassing our neighbors, talking to people about the pros and cons of the HD proposal, we found that _most_ of our neighbors were caught in an ethical crunch. On the one hand, most people wanted some degree of protection for Spruce Hill. On the other, they felt that the proposed HD had too many problems-- too much potential for abuse, ill-defined regulations, too much bureaucracy, and much more. We found that people were capable of holding the same estimates of the worth of the HD, and still differ over whether it should be done or not: it really was a 49.9/51.1% sort of decision for many. In fact, the only people we encountered who were completely happy with the HD proposal were the officers of the SCHA... and virtually the only person we encountered who was entirely opposed was Al Krigman. So when Al winds up his noisemaker about "small groups" and "behind closed doors," bear in mind several things. Remember that he's already staked a position that's nowhere near the general concern of Spruce Hill's population. He's already taken himself out of the debate, and yet he complains when it doesn't go the way he wants. And while he complains of "small groups," he never seems to realize that he amounts to an even _smaller_ group... and one that's alienated a lot of allies, at that. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
