(26th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.)
Here we are.
Decision-time on 2 W. Market.
Gadfly has tried to model here a decision-making process.
Gathering all information.
Opening to all sides.
Taking time to think.
Gadfly’s ready to make a decision.
How about you?
And will you come tonight to see Council engaging in activity at the core of its role in City government?
And, like Gadfly, test your thoughts against theirs.
So: Gadfly thinks Council should deny the petition of the owners of 2 W. Market.
Why?
- All things considered, it is hard for Gadfly to see that this is anything else than “relief” for one party. There is no claim that there is any demonstrable need to do this from anybody else. There is no claim that this will do any demonstrable good for anybody else.
- The petitioner’s claims seem more on the order of there is no reason that you can’t do this for us if you want to: it’s not spot zoning; it will only have limited applicability, so you aren’t going to get overrun; it won’t look like a business, so it’s not going to change the appearance of the neighborhood. Negatives.
- If there were general demonstrable need from others, if there were general demonstrable demand from others, if there were general demonstrable good that could be done for others, Gadfly assumes the City would be aware of all of that and initiating changes in the normal order to things.
- Instead, in Gadfly’s mind, the City, in the combination of written and verbal testimony, has made a case for denying the petition.
- The owners of 2 W. Market are not aggrieved. They initiated the renovating while the case was still in a court time frame. There are commercial district opportunities for their business. Testimony indicated the property was saleable.
- The “aspirational” nature of zoning codes is a genuine and legitimate basis for the passionate opposition of some of the neighbors of 2 W. Market.
Gadfly will leave it at that for now.
Would anyone like to agree or disagree with Gadfly?
How do you see it?