In my experience with city/town governments, minutes ere pretty much
all that were kept. Transcripts were rare. If anyone was using those
terms interchangeably, they were simply incorrect and/or choosing to
mislead.
Also in Provincetown the Board of Selectmen were dead set against
their weekly meetings being taped and televised on public access but
we had to tell them they really had no choice about it. It was in the
Town's contract with Comcast as well as Federal Law. Town government
has become at least a little more transparent. Mabe the same thing
will happen here.
Frank
On Oct 4, 2008, at 01:58 PM, Glenn moyer wrote:
"Of course, the minutes,
which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those."
Frank,
This is not what Farnham, director of PHC, and the PHC secretary
have asserted. Andrew might remember this and Melani sat beside him
at the PHC architectural hearing.
Andrew asked permission to make an independent recording of this
"public hearing" and was denied. Farnham justified the refusal
while asserting that an accurate record would be produced. As I
later experienced again at the PHC offices, they use the words
"transcripts" and minutes interchangeably. Even the minute by
minute recording, "minutes" is considered to be a much more detailed
record than a sloppy outline.
The PHC secretary got angry at me when I said, "these are not
transcripts." That exchange helps me clearly remember that she was
calling them "transcripts" She got angry but never disputed my
complaint.
I can't recall if Farnham said minutes or transcripts to Andrew.
(Melani and Andrew- help me out).
The moment they refused to allow Andrew to make an independent
recording, they lost the right to produce a sloppy outline of these
official hearings!
Consider: These commissions record these official public hearings.
They refuse to allow independent recording while asserting
"transcripts" will be available. Then, when the published record
appears, the mistakes follow an identifiable pattern. (Thank God
for the new public access TV cameras)
As I just responded to Ray's comments, the traffic study was never
relevant. When I went to the PCPC office requesting to inspect the
public submissions, no one knew where the file was located! Most of
those commissioners never read all the submissions our neighbors
worked on.
Very few of our neighbors attended both PHC hearings. Like I said
to Ray, it was very clear to me that the traffic study was nothing
more than a smokescreen placed in the "minutes" to be pointed
towards at the approval show.
Think about it. Did any of those commissioners say anything
specific about the traffic study? Matt mentioned the problem of the
promised valet parking and shuttle buses turning on 41st St. Did
they point to any part of the traffic study to refute his argument
or any other potential problem raised by the opponents? "I believe
the traffic study and parking won't be a problem," is the red flag
which shows its real purpose. If anyone presented their study, as
support, like that in the real world; they would be laughed at. (The
Clark Park dog park advocates were publicly humiliated when I
demanded their survey and data being asserted. They left it at home
'cause they didn't think anyone would be interested! I could see
and hear the reaction of the attendees and one woman appropriately
called their survey propaganda)
It's a terrible situation which I've witnessed first hand. All the
written testimony of opponents and all but the cover page of the
traffic study went directly into the trash.
The staff couldn't even locate the file for me to look at!!!
glenn
PS In my opinion, I don't think the organized group got very good
legal advice.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Oct 4, 2008 11:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UC] Scale and its adjudicators
At the Woodland Terrace meetings I attended we were informed that
aesthetics, including scale, would not be as important to focus on as
things like traffic. We were told that a traffic concerns would have
more impact on the City agencies involved and that aesthetics were
not
really a "valid" thing to complain about. I assume this was true at
other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major
talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of
the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different
angle
on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that
there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes,
which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those.
Frank
On Oct 4, 2008, at 09:48 AM, Anthony West wrote:
Traffic was one of the most frequently-expressed concerns I've heard
community members raise about this project at two meetings. It also
has a large potential impact on public infrastructure, as well as on
community members who don't live right next to a project. Traffic is
a meat-and-potatoes city-planning problem. It would be odd indeed if
PCPC did not consider traffic at this site.
It's possible PCPC chose to decide the traffic question in
September, after reviewing the traffic study, rather than in April,
before reviewing the traffic study. Studies are studied by some
people before making up their minds, and city planners are under
permanent pressure to read and consider studies.
-- Tony West
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN wrote:
why, then, was traffic so important for pcpc to consider? and why
was traffic more important to pcpc than the hotel's height and
scale? and why was traffic so overridingly important for pcpc to
consider in september, but not in april?
----
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>.
----
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>.
----
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>.
----
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>.
