Thanks for the private and public comments on this - and the phone calls, I'm trying to reach you all. Closer reading of the Ballot Issue 2C's language shows that if passed, the number of units and the length of the exemption are yet to be set by Council: "...SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS TO BE ENACTED BY COUNCIL ORDINANCE REGARDING DURATION OF THE EXEMPTION AND LIMITS OF THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS..."
So if 2C does pass, citizens can still let Council know the limits they would like to see on the exemption.
I've added in the comments section to this post some thoughts I picked up from Lafayette Mayor Pro-Tem David Strungis too. Councilor Kerry Bensman articulates "It Makes Sense to Reject 2C" in the Letters to the Editor of the Sunday Daily Camera, and Councilman Frank Phillips already added his comments to the posting below titled "Lafayette Ballot Item 2C - Does it Even Matter?"
Plus, read more of this discussion from the earlier post "Lafayette Councilor Misrepresented Big Time."
The following submission is from Lafayette City Councilor Jay Ruggeri:
2-C is "To See" the Future. Vote Yes for Lafayette.
In the past, Lafayette's city leaders neglected to include the Albertsons and Wal-Mart area into the exempted portion of the Urban Renewal District. They didn't consider the new trend in urban design that allows for a residence to be located above the retail and office space. Lafayette is now discovering, like many communities, that bringing a "mixed use" concept into the core of a town center is attractive, sustainable and environmentally friendly.
In Lafayette, we want to add that "mixed use" to new County buildings and a new three acre, pedestrian friendly, urban park to address to the void left by the big box stores that have moved to the higher traffic roadways. Correcting this omission will allow Lafayette to participate in the smart urban design planning that other communities currently enjoy. Designing an area without the necessary and supportive residential building permits doesn't make good sense for an interested developer. Without this exemption, we'll be left with big box blight.
One should keep in mind that these residences will be added to the business district, not some suburban sprawl that the growth limit was intended to address. This one time exemption would not change the city's 200 unit per year growth limit. That growth cap will continue. The citizens of Lafayette would prefer to rid that core area of the typical big box retail center.
This vision of the future is not about big money, it's about a quality meeting place. Our citizens want a safe, comfortable, pedestrian friendly town center, not more of the same big box retail centers with a sea of asphalt. We could take a corrective lesson from that Joni Mitchell song, and sing..."Let's take parking lots and put up a paradise !"
Vote YES on 2C. The one time exemption for Lafayette's blight.
Jay Ruggeri, Councilor. City of Lafayette
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
2C is anything but moot. 2C has nothing to do with the philosophic discussion about managed growth. The Urban Renewal District is already exempt for the most part. 2C really just adds in a forgotten piece.
2C is about, and has always been about, setting an important area outside the growth cap in an attempt to remove any and all barriers a developer may have or perceive to have.
We recognized that a project like this is a risk for a developer, and the site is technically "B" space. We understood that to add on top of it a bureaucratic process that forces developers to compete for units would be just one more impediment.
If 2C passes, residents could expect to see a modest amount of residential units added to the area but nothing outlandish. By supporting 2C we remove one more barrier to success. By denying it we add one.
In addition, the $6 million figure mentioned is simply a suggestion. The consultants suggested a $1 million park and $5 Million in street improvements. The city could just do the park and $1 million in street repairs, making this a $2 million project. Or we could do no street repairs.
Or we could do nothing and stick with blighted buildings and broken parking lots.
Ultimately, 2C gives the city leverage to accomplish an important redevelopment project in a blighted area. It calls on council to restrict the number of units exempted and to set a sunset date.
It is consistent with the city's vision to limit sprawl and unnecessary growth.
2C is good for Lafayette and I hope you and your readers will support it.
As the new councilors explain whey we should vote for 2C they show me more reasons why we shouldn't. With all due respect, and I really mean that, the new councilors arguing on behalf of this amendment don't understand the history. That concerns me. When the Urban Renewal District was created it did not include the Albertson's Wal Mart area. It wasn't forgotten or overlooked as they claim. Who told them that? The URA was extended at a later date to include the Albertson's Wal Mart Plaza as well as the area on the South side of Baseline including the Country General building and the bowling alley. The language to exempt mixed use in the URD was specific in it's exclusion of the additional area. Take a look at the charter, it's there
Dwelling units located within mixed use building complexes within the Urban Renewal Area - Lafayette Old Town, as that Area existed as of January 1, 2000, shall also be exempt from the above limitations.
Don't you new councilors understand that those of us who have concerns about this have been here watching for years? The fact that you seem to ignore our documented history of this subject is troubling. We've been here before, you haven't. You want us to trust you but you aren't willing to listen to us and understand the history. That's troubling. If you had been willing to instill a few limits I'd be writing in favor of this idea. This isn't about a philosophic discussion of growth. This is about this city's history with growth management. It's abhorent. If you had been involved in city business for a longer period of time you'd have a better grasp of how things work. That's what is disappointing to me. Again, with all due respect, when I talked to Councilor Ruggeri after he was elected he didn't even know we had a managed growth amendment.
Guys, you are overlooking a very important aspect of this city's history. This has nothing to do with you as individuals, because this project could drag on long after you are gone, with our without permit exemptions.
Porkbarrel. I'm voting NO.
Post a Comment