[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you have. Right now, the compromise proposal differs from the original in one respect only: owner-occupents can choose to have their houses designated. Investment properties and businesses would be governed as they would under the original proposal. There may be more differences once we start on the public metings we're planning, but right now, that's the only one.-- Original Message --
From: Brian Siano
Subject: Re: [UC] Another party with no stake in the issue weighs in
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 20:44:51 -0800
In that case, I'd like to know what you think of the SHNA's compromise
proposal.Frankly, the difference between the SHNA's proposal and no HD at all sounds like a distinction without a difference. Maybe we should take the same approach to other zoning issues. You can't open a bar next to a school unless you want to. You can't raise livestock in your backyard unless you want to. Or have I misread it?
I'd like to point out that Ray Rorke's census-drawn statistics indicate how much of a change this is.
Occupied housing units 3,391 100.0 %
Owner-occupied housing units 359 10.6 %
Renter-occupied housing units 3,032 89.4 %
Without quibbling over finer distinctions, our proposal would exempt at most 10.6% of the properties in the area. And the owner-occupants of those 356 properties can _choose_ to have their homes designated. In fact, given that the two groups responsible for the original proposal (the SHCA and UCHS) claim several hundred members-- and we can presume that they'll rush to have their own houses designated-- it's very likely that our compromise proposal would exempt only _half_ of that number. And if designation really is the boon that the advocates claim it is, then the remainder will probably dwindle over the years.
Our proposal was based on the principle of _not_ forcing owner-occupants to give up their property rights without compensation. From what Ray posted, it seems that this simple bit of decency and respect for our neighbors is a pretty minor cost, overall.
In other words, our proposal (as it currently stands) is closer to the original than having none at all. This was pretty obvious to anyone who'd read the proposal, and the census stuff Ray cited makes this point even clearer.
----
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>.
