So it's entirely possible that this whole issue would have been settled months ago were the truth about "open and public meetings" known. It's also possible that this factor was not a consideration. Either way, to say that "how we got here" is unimportant is disingenuous. Al, yours is a?reasonable forensic analysis. Unfortunately, less disciplined participants may not be aware their behavior is a public display of their personal bias supporting the project?while discounting the opinions of other interested parties with differing or yet to be developed points of view.
"Time is money"?is always a matter of urgency for developers, especially now, when financing?packages are?so perishable. Ciao, Craig -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 4:26 pm Subject: Re: [UC] Regarding the proposed hotel project ? ? In a message dated 2/13/2008 4:12:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I respectfully disagree. "How we got here" is indeed important. If mistakes were made regarding advertising previous meetings then those meetings should be held again and advertised correctly. Ignoring the fact that mistakes were made doesn't make it right. This is exactly the type of behavior that makes residents distrust their community associations. ? I must agree with Frank, here.?Tonight's and any future meetings will undoubtedly receive the advanced promotion that befits the issue, so people can be heard, opinions influenced, and proposals modified as appropriate. ? However, it appears that the Historical Commission was acting under incorrect claims of widespread community involvement and participation when it ignored the recommendations of its own architectural committee. Since the membership of the Commission has now been radically altered by the new Mayor's appointments, we will never know whether these claims had any influence on the ruling for an "approval in concept." So the process may or may not have already been tainted by statements which weren't true. ? Whether these statements were honest mistakes by Sam Olshin is irrelevant. And, the question of why Tom Lussenhop didn't correct Sam when he made them is also a consideration. ? So it's entirely possible that this whole issue would have been settled months ago were the truth about "open and public meetings" known. It's also possible that this factor was not a consideration. Either way, to say that "how we got here" is unimportant is disingenuous. ? Always at your service & ready for a dialog, Al Krigman The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL Music takes you there. ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
