Jump to content
So nice that every other thing that government might be doing in NYC has been done! No potholes, corruption or exploding manholes from ancient steam pipes underground.
Stunning how the 'sheep' voters accept this kind of nonsense from those who we employ.
"Residents may be able to give input on the plans during an April 24 meeting on the city's new comprehensive plan"
May be able?? Why not 'will be able?'
So am I to understand that the rezoning process will be bypassed by the Council?
No one knows about it..which is the point, I guess.
I only became aware of it because of an email town hall meeting passed along by my HOA. Which, interestingly enough will only be attended by three council members so they do not have to invite the media -subverting the intent of the GA Open Meetings Act, IMO.
So, let me get this straight....To prevent a builder from building apartments on a piece of land zoned for this use (by a judge, after a long, expensive court battle) the council has decided, in secret, ( that's what 'no public hearing' means) to issue a ten year bond to buy the land (at a price certainly including enough profit to entice the builder to sell instead of build) and resell it to another developer (yet to be chosen) to build 'something' that the council prefers (using a to-be-formed-later commission) that will be determined at some point in the future with the public's help (and will include a fountain or park). Oh, and it won't increase our taxes, because the original "City Lite" plan was inaccurate. What could possibly go wrong? Obviously no possiblility for corruption here!
And why doesn't Lennar just sell the property to a retail developer without the City in the middle? Wouldn't a promise to consider a retail/office/commercial rezoing achieve the same thing?
I'd be happy to broker the deal!
This is precisely why many opposed the City Lite concept. "Zoning, Code Enforcement and Trash Collection" does NOT include "buying land and reselling it to meet the council's desires." The standard here should be 'no possible conflict of interest', not 'trust us.'
So if I understand correctly, to prevent a company from possibly building apartments on land zoned (by a judge) for this use ten years ago, the council decided, with no opportunity for public comment, to create an entity (as yet nonexistent) to buy the land (certainly at a price including enough profit to convince the builder to sell) and resell it to another company (chosen by the council) to ensure that the development meets the standards of the community (which have yet to be determined, but the council is asking for help in deciding what to do with it) To achieve this grand scheme, the City has decided (once again with no public input) to issue a ten year bond (with no referendum) and this will not cost the city residents
Last login: Tuesday, April 23, 2013