101st in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.

Just kidding.

But the longest-running zoning case in Bethlehem history did end its latest chapter February 26th.

Closing lawyer-jargon-heavy final arguments by all sides. Nothing really intelligible for people like us.

Then the vote went 3-0 to uphold the zoning amendment that permits a business at 2 W. Market in a residential district.

Written report due within 45 days. Gadfly has never seen a Zoning Hearing Board report and hopes to get a copy for us to review.

Will there be an appeal?

Will Gadfly live to see this controversy finally settled?

How did the Hatfield/McCoy feud stop?

But fighting for control of and the quality of life in your neighborhood is sacred work.

100th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.

Sara K. Satullo, “There’s a new corner bakery in Bethlehem.” lehighvalleylive.com., February 4, 2020.  (with lots of photos — thanks, Sara!)

Gadfly was thinking about the 2 W. Market case Saturday afternoon.

It’s been out of the news almost a month and won’t return till the decision of the Zoning Board February 26.

Gadfly was thinking about it because a new store opened in his neighborhood, a bakery — “Charlie’s Bakery” — at 1401 High, corner of High and Greenwich.

Why was Gadfly thinking about the majestic 2 W. Market in the historical district when a bakery opened in a modest location in the hinterlands?

Because it’s a corner store taking advantage of the relatively new corner-store ordinance specifically designed to return such properties to their former and original commercial use.

And because 2 W. Market is trying to take advantage of the relatively new corner-store ordinance to establish a business where there was never one.

Charlie’s Bakery is precisely the kind of use for which the corner-store ordinance was designed, a space historically commercial but turned residential being returned to its commercial use.

Gadfly’s 50-year-old kids still easily remember Miller’s store where a clerk who dispensed the candy was so much a “character” that she earned from them a (not so nice) nick-name.

One would think that anybody can see that the High St. building style (shaved corner entrance, side windows) on the left for which the corner-store ordinance was designed is not the same as the Market St. property. Anybody but our Zoning Board and City Council.

From all angles, the High St. building was obviously designed for first-floor commercial use.

We wish Charlie well. When Gadfly passed while taking his constitutional Saturday afternoon the store was closed, with two disappointed would-be patrons chatting outside.

SOLD OUT!

Music to the ears of the new businessman.

Good luck, Charlie

99th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.

Finally, after almost 20 hrs. of meetings, both sides “rested” at the Zoning Hearing Board last night.

Gadfly joked with Board members before the meeting that maybe his coverage of this case would end at the round number of 100 posts.

Looks like that may happen.

The Board looks to make a decision at their February 26 meeting.

Nothing to report from last night except another night of gritty pick-and-shovel lawyering.

And relief that the end is near.

98th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St. 

Gadfly has downsizing work to do. He keeps hoping for resolution of the 2 W. Market case. At least at the local level. Whatever happens here, the case will no doubt fly into the court system. And we’ll lose sight of it for a while.

His eyes are focused on tonight. Can we get to closing arguments, please?

But Gadfly thinks there is one more piece that you will be interested in, you who see this case as important to such questions as whether you have any control over your neighborhood, whether zoning laws matter, whether City Hall is for or agin’ you.

And you who are kind of nerdy like he is.

Remember that in skeletal form what’s happening here in this phase of a longstanding argument is that neighbors are questioning the validity of an amendment to the zoning code that enables the owners of 2 W. Market to operate a financial service office in a residential neighborhood.

Now this case has generated a truck load of testimony.

You who are more recent Gadfly followers should look at this chart of testimony of just one meeting done when Gadfly was much younger and intoxicated with his power to help people come to a decision about the controversy: Chart of 11-20-18 testimony . It’s from a post entitled Gadfly’s Study Guide to the 11/20 Council Hearing on 2 W. Market. A post that won an honorable mention at the northeast regional conference of The Gaddies, our national organization.

So the neighbors’ attorney wanted to use a large portion of such testimony — our voices — in the attempt to invalidate the amendment favorable to the Marketers.

The neighbors’ attorney had a document of several hundred pages (Gadfly’s testimony itself took 12 pages) of transcribed testimony — our voices — over several Planning Commission and City Council meetings that he wanted to introduce into the ZHB record.

The marketers vigorously objected. And it would seem to Gadfly that the Zoning Hearing Board is on the side of the Marketers.

As Gadfly understands it, the Marketers want to exclude all (or as much as they can) of the negative testimony that led up to the approving vote on the amendment by City Council. That would exclude all (or mostly all) of the resident voices  — our voices — testifying against the Marketers.

The past does not matter, say the Marketers, a past that the neighbors would argue is full of problematic aspects that call into question the very basis on which Council passed the amendment.

It does not matter whether the amendment was immorally or illegally passed, according to this position. It was passed. That’s it. Get over it. (Hmmm, where in the national dialogue has Gadfly heard that phrase before?) Move on to subsequent events.

The Marketers argue that the clock starts anew with the passage of the amendment, that the reasons and motives on which the amendment was passed are not relevant. The Marketers would start this case with the notion that the amendment as passed is valid.

Now we have seen in a recent post what the impact of such a ruling can have, the post in which we see Mr. Haines sparring with the opposition attorneys AND the ZHB over the relevance of the influential role the Mayor played in passage of the amendment. Such testimony is not acceptable according to this position.

Another example of this view of the restricted legal basis of neighbor testimony  — our voices — is what happened to Gadfly #2 Bill Scheirer.

Scheirer was “precluded” from testifying. Precluded! He came to the big dance dressed up with a prepared statement and was refused admission at the door.

A usually gentle and calm but now exasperated Mr. Scheirer (you know him, you’ve seen him in action) had one word for the proceeding as he exited the arena! One word! Click here to find out what it was.

We are pleased to include here for history the full text of Mr. Scheirer’s precluded testimony: Statement of Bill Scheirer

So each side has its legal precedent. For the Marketers, it’s Streck v. Lower Macungie Township Board of Commissioners, 1804 C.D.2011, 1809 C.D.2011. (2012), in which we find “the court will not inquire into the motives [reasons] of a municipal legislative body in making zoning changes.”

The neighbors have Baker v. Chartiers Tp. Zon. Hearing Bd., 677 A.2d 1274 , in which we find as a reason an amendment was invalidated “the failure of the Board of Supervisors to provide a full and fair examination of the impact which the rezoning would have on adjacent properties.”

Which will the ZHB go with? Gadfly feels the ZHB has already shown strong leaning to  the Marketer’s case.

Gadfly finds this back-and-forth legal arguing fascinating and invites you to hear the lawyers lay out their cases. In the following video clip, the ZHB solicitor raises the question of what kind of testimony the ZHB should listen to, and then the attorneys for the City/Marketers and for the neighbors respectively make their pitches.

to be continued . . .

97th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.

What did you think of the testimony of Mrs. Virgilio, the sole resident witness put on by the City/Marketers?

If I were to boil her testimony down, I’d say Mrs. Virgilio feels it’s ok for a financial service office to operate out of 2 W. Market even though it’s in an area zoned residential because it’s a commercial area and because it has raised property values.

Would you agree with the way Gadfly put it?

Last post I asked you to use Google to “see” what Mrs. Virgilio sees. Now see the area  through the City zoning map. (Have you ever seen the zoning map. Pretty interesting.) Yellow is residential; the other (pink?) is commercial.

Now Mrs. Virgilio “sees” the New and Market intersection as commercial even though 3 of the corners are zoned residential. Councilman Callahan said basically the same thing at a key Council meeting long ago and even extended his purview of the commercial area west on Market toward Main, saying something like “you can’t tell me W. Market St here is residential.”

Here is the audio of the cross examination of Mrs. Virgilio by the neighbors’ attorney.

The attorney makes several points in that cross examination:

• Though there was a dentist office in the Virgilio B&B before they bought the property, it would not be allowed now by law.
• Verizon is in the business district, and Glemser bldg and the law offices are grandfathered, so they have no legal bearing on 2 W.
• Though there is a longstanding law office near the B&B, a new one would not be allowed there now by law.
• Though Mrs. Virgilio testified that there was no “commercial creep” in the neighborhood, the recent opening of a financial service office at 2  W. itself is indeed an example of commercial creep.

Valid points, Gadfly thought.

But, climatically, the neighbors’ attorney focused on what for Gadfly was precisely his big takeaway from Mrs. Virgilio’s testimony when he asked, “You have a financial interest in this, don’t you?” Go back to the last post and look at her stress on increased property values under examination by the City attorney. Did you notice that?

For Mrs. Virgilio the touchstone is money, thought Gadfly. Hmmm.

Her answer to this question of whether she had a financial interest in the approval of the Marketer’s presence — delivered with emphasis and urgency as if it was a stupid question — almost jolted Gadfly out of his seat with its dollar-sign clarity:

Isn’t that the whole idea of buying property?

A rhetorical question. As if the answer could be nothing but a “yes.” But Gadfly, sitting in the cheap seats, was about ready to shout “NO.”

The principal purpose of buying property is to make money? Not always.

Mrs. Virgilio is a businesswoman. Ok, you buy a property as a businesswoman, and you hope to build on your investment.

She was answering with honesty and complete transparency.

But if you are buying a “home,” you have a lot of other values in mind, the kind of things a long line of neighbors talked about in meeting after meeting embodied in references to a sense of community, eyes on the street, borrowing cups of sugar, shoveling sidewalks, watching each others’ kids, and so forth.

A “neighborhood” for a prospective home owner and for a prospective businesswoman would mean two different things.

Mrs. Virgilio admits of such when she says if she was looking for a place to raise kids, she wouldn’t have bought there.

But kids have been raised in the 2 W. Market house. The previous owner Schadts had one or maybe two children there. One testified several times, and Gadfly believes another may have done so once.

The Romerils (Martin testified  last meeting) were raised on the block. Ms. Van Wirt, also a prior testifier, is now raising kids on the block.

More importantly, by her own admission at the beginning of her testimony, Mrs. Virgilio herself raised three sons at the intersection of New and Market.

So, children can and have been raised at the intersection of New and Market. One can have a home there.

New and Market is residential.

The fact that a street has double yellow lines, the fact that a street has parking meters, the fact that a street has a bus stop does not make an area commercial to Gadfly’s way of thinking.

So Gadfly was no more moved by Mrs. Virgilio’s testimony here than he was similar testimony by many more people during the original stages of this controversy.

And he doesn’t see that she goes anywhere to rebutting the two main conclusions of the neighbors’ expert witness.

Here’s the full interchange between the attorney and Mrs. Virgilio:

Attorney: You have a financial interest in this, don’t you, in that a financial service office has been placed diagonally across from your property that has now increased the value of your property?

Mrs. Virgilio: Isn’t that the whole idea of buying property?

Attorney: Well, isn’t the whole idea of when you buy into a residential neighborhood that it remains residential?

Mrs. Virgilio: I think I stated up front that when we purchased our property we purchased it with the idea of putting a business in there. It was already a business when we purchased it, and we purchased it with the intent of continuing it as a different type of business, but it would still be a business. I already said if we were looking to buy a home as a residence to raise our children, we would have never looked at New and Market.

96th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.

Gadfly spent another long night Wednesday at the Zoning Hearing Board at which the owner of 2 W. Market St., the neighbors of 2 W. Market St., and the City are locked like Middle East countries in a feud of such longstanding duration that it’s almost impossible to remember anymore what the core issues are.

Those issues are lost in the legal weeds. Gadfly invites you to peek at the last 45 minutes of Wednesday’s meeting (begin around min. 4:15:00), for a mind-numbing City-lawyer-led tour of city properties by a civil engineer, who, rather amazingly, was permitted to testify as an expert witness on zoning.

Gadfly assumes this kind of thing was necessary for the City to make its case and the attorney to earn his keep, but it was not spectator-friendly. God bless the Board members. One of whom appears to be looking for divine intervention during this punishing latter testimony. One could better hope that he has discovered the beauty in the Town Hall ceiling that Dana Grubb has just revealed to us.

There was no resolution Wednesday night. We look forward to another try at such next Monday night.

“Some people may wonder why this matters so much and see it as a tempest in a teapot,” neighbor team member Barbara Diamond says in yesterday’s explanatory post in this series.

Yes, some of you Gadfly followers ARE wondering that. Couldn’t we all be making better use of our time, you ask?

Yes, Gadfly hears that.

So what is the City/Marketer case?

Gadfly has done exhaustive presentation of the Marketer position in past posts when as many as 12 or 15 residents testified in their favor at previous meetings. See here for one example among many posts.

But the City/Marketers only presented one testifier this time.

So — since in Gadville we always try to present all sides — let’s look at the testimony of Suzanne Virgilio, owner of the Bethlehem Inn Bed & Breakfast catercorner from 2 W. Market, the sole resident witness put on by the City.

But, first, let’s familiarize ourselves with the 2 W. Market “neighborhood.”

2 W. Market is at the corner of New and Market. Gadfly bets we all have passed it scores if not hundreds of times.

But let’s try to “see” it right now before listening to Virgilio. If the technology works, click here for the google map in (I hope) the mode that will enable you to travel east and west on Market as well as north and south on New. (If the link doesn’t work, you can google-map 2 W. Market yourself and maneuver around in the street view.)

The idea is to see what Virgilio sees as she stands at the intersection of New and Market.

Ok, now listen to her testimony.

Gadfly apologizes that his camera position and YouTube’s choice of image make Mrs. Virgilio look like a mob informant secretly testifying before a Congressional committee

• “Our objective in purchasing the property was to run a bed & breakfast at that location.”
• “We did so specifically at this location because it was a great business location.”
• “If we were looking to buy a home to raise our children in, we would not have chosen this location.”
• “But it was ideal for business.”

How would you characterize the nature of the neighborhood?

• “Obviously we’re within the historic district, but within the historic district there’s many different personalities.”
• “That’s what makes it very appealing . . . in a downtown area you can live on a residential street, but you also can live in a more commercial area.”
• “Which is how I characterize the neighborhood at the corner of New and Market.”
• “It’s a very commercial area. It has a 4-way traffic light. It has double yellow lines which indicate a heavily traffic’d area.”
• “Up until this year we had a LANTA bus stop directly in front of our home. I don’t think residential areas necessarily have that.”
• “We have a school directly across the street, with drop-offs, pick-ups, school buses, parents, etcetera.”
• “While maybe some areas in the historic district pose a more residential feel, certainly that’s not the case at the corner of New and Market.”
• It’s an area in which there are parking meters, already existing offices, and there has been no increase in traffic as a result of the 2 W. Market business.

Have you observed any negative effects in the neighborhood?

• “Absolutely not.”
• Quite the contrary, I thing the improvements made to that property have upped the bar.”
• “Our own property value has increased since that property has been renovated.”
• “On New St., two houses on New St. from us, sold for very, very high amounts and sold quickly.”
• “On Market St. two doors down from us another property sold very quickly.”
• “And I think that has a great deal to do with what has been done to 2 W. Market St.”
• “It’s improved the neighborhood. It’s improved property value. It’s been a great improvement overall.”

Have you noticed any creeping commercialization in, say, the past five years?

• “In my immediate 4-corner area, I can’t think of anything that has become commercial.”

Ok, so here is the only testimony by a resident put on by the City/Marketer to defend against the claim by the other neighbors that the zoning amendment permitting a business use at 2 W. Market in a residential district is invalid.

What are you thinking?

to be continued . . .

95th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.

Barbara Diamond enjoys retirement as Lehigh University Director of Foundation Relations by engaging in various activities and organizations hopefully for the betterment of the community. Her particular interests at the moment are preventing gun violence, local government ethics reform, and Bethlehem Democratic Committee work.

Thank you Gadfly for reporting so extensively on 2 West Market St. Some people may wonder why this matters so much and see it as a tempest in a teapot. In fact this has a far-reaching impact that could adversely affect property owners in residentially zoned neighborhoods in the city. It is also about using the levers of government to dispense favorable treatment to a well-connected benefactor.

The simple facts are that the Marketer, as you call him, decided to move his business from the commercial district on Broad St to a house in the historic district. The ZHB declined a variance twice to do so but granted one not long after he made a substantial gift to build the mounted police stable. He commenced renovations knowing that litigation was ongoing and the ZHB’s favorable decision might be overturned — and it was, unanimously, by the Commonwealth Court.

Endeavoring to get his way nonetheless, he decided to get the city to alter its zoning ordinance so that his property would fit in. This was done by a tortured amendment to the corner store provision in such a way that he could operate his business in a residential neighborhood. No analysis was done by the city as required to determine how many other properties might be affected, and no property owners were notified before the city council approved it. Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, acknowledged in a memo to the Bethlehem Planning Commission (BPC) that the amendment clearly benefits the business owner, and that the potential impacts on the city are unknown: “this amendment is specifically written to provide relief for one individual’s property, but there is no information about the overall number of properties that will be affected. . . . the end result of the amendment is unclear.” The BPC did not approve the amendment, but the city council did. With their favorable vote, Councilmen Waldron, Callahan, Martell, and Reynolds failed to abide by the intent of their zoning code to preserve residential neighborhoods throughout the city for the benefit of one special interest business promoted by the Mayor.

We are before the ZHB as part of the appeal process, but because of city politics we suspect that they will rule in favor of the Marketer. You only have to look at the table where the city’s attorney (who is paid by tax-payers) sits beside and confers with the marketer’s attorney to know the outcome.

Nevertheless we believe this is a fight worth the time, effort, and money. When individuals use their influence to get favorable treatment that materially has a detrimental impact on others in the community, it should be challenged.

Barbara

As always, Gadfly invites opposing views.

94th in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.

Here’s another interesting head-scratcher.

In the 2 W. Market case, what constitutes evidence?

Gadfly thinks you will find this 5 minutes of Steve Diamond’s testimony provocatively relevant to that question.

Part of Mr. Diamond’s testimony on the economic impact of a vague zoning amendment on the large investment he and others have put in their historic area properties is dismissed as speculative, and the bottom line in his testimony about the physical and financial stress generated by uncertainty is dismissed as providing no evidence, no facts.

Your own mental state is not a fact, not evidence.

Are you seeing the kind of personal and legal swamp you might have to wade through in order to protect your property, your neighborhood?

to be continued . . .

93rd in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.

The Zoning Hearing Board meets on 2 W. Market again tonight. Might be the last time. One can hope that we will hear closing arguments.

So Gadfly is kind of rushing to come up to speed and to point out to you interesting elements from the December 11 meeting.

So let Gadfly start with the testimony of Bruce Haines for the neighbors. It will give you a stark understanding of the difference between public commentary at a City Council meeting meant to influence a Council decision and the quasi-legal format of the Zoning Hearing Board.

Simply stated, there are things you can say to Council that don’t “count” at an appeal hearing like this before the ZHB.

Let Gadfly ask you a question.

Do you think a Mayor’s position on an issue can have influence on his Planning Director and City Council members?

Gadfly would say yes. How about you?

Certainly this was an issue in the meetings on 2 W. Market before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Director did not endorse/approve the Marketer proposal. The Mayor weighed in on the side of the Marketer — and did so late in the game. So neither the City Planning Director nor the City Planning Commission approved the Marketer petition. But the Mayor — who, of course, had no formal vote at any time — overrode his Planning Director, and his position favorable to the petition was well known to Council members, some of whom might be thought to be his allies, and the public. There was suspicion that the Mayor’s favorable position was a favor to a prominent financial contributor to the City and that the Mayor’s favorable position was a factor in Council’s approval.

Hmm, has Gadfly characterized that fairly?

So, Gadfly would say that in the mind of followers of the local proceedings the beliefs and actions of the Mayor were quite relevant to the passing of the Marketer petition.

But not so in front of ZHB.

Take 5 minutes and follow Mr. Haines sparring with the City attorney and the ZHB solicitor over the Mayor’s involvement.

You will hear that there is no relevance to what the Mayor felt, said, did. It doesn’t matter if the Mayor was for or against. You will hear that the Board doesn’t care if the Mayor endorsed or not. It doesn’t matter if the Mayor contradicted his Planning Director.

The ZHB solicitor ends this exchange by saying he’s “missing the point” of Mr. Haines’s recurring references to the Mayor’s role.

Really?

Makes Gadfly feel like a country rube.

But you will enjoy Mr. Haines braving the legal dragons.

to be continued . . .

92nd in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St.

So the neighbors’ expert witness Karen Beck Pooley made, as we saw last time, two conclusions about the text amendment relating to a business at 2 W. Market St. in a neighborhood zoned residential.

1) “The amendment didn’t clearly articulate the planning priorities set out in the Comprehensive Plan.”

Doing the course of the long series of meetings on this case that has generated 92 posts dating back before The Flood, Gadfly realized something about himself. He’s a “strict constructionist,” a “constitutionalist.” He saw the City Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning code as “constitutions” and wanted arguments to be based in them, to flow from them. He did not see that from the 2 W. Marketers.

2) “It was very unclear as to how the recommended adjustment would affect properties throughout the City.”

The Marketers presented a list of 8 properties that would be affected by their amendment, the City 142 properties. And there was no duplication! The lists had no properties in common! What the *!*!? To Gadfly, it was obviously unclear to what properties this amendment would apply. One wonders how the amendment could have passed the hurdles it did without clarity on this matter. Unbelievable.

Now it’s one thing to make such unchallenged public comments at City Council, quite another to face cross-examination by lawyers from the City and from the Marketers in the trial-like proceedings before the Zoning Hearing Board. Gadfly knows. He did not do particularly well under his cross-examination two meetings before. Ugh.

Not so with Beck Pooley. Gadfly invites you to sample the skill she showed under cross-examination. In Gadfly’s opinion the cross-examining attorneys succeeded only in giving her the opportunity to once again and more strongly state and elaborate her position.

In this following clip of cross-examination by the City attorney, note, for instance, how Beck Pooley avoids the attempt to make confusion about the amendment her problem. No, she says, it is not my confusion but the confusion of others that is clearly on the record, and as a specific example she cites again the lack of commonality in the property lists submitted by the City and by the marketers. Precisely one of her main points. To which the attorney can only say, “Ok.” In fact, he says it twice.

Note also what Gadfly would consider a crude lawyerly attempt to discredit Beck Pooley as an expert witness by testing her, by asking her the meaning of “text amendment”: “Do you understand what a text amendment is?” Rather than give a definition that the attorney could worry her over, Beck Pooley replies that’s it’s not her term but one used by others to describe the amendment in question — thus eluding a potential trap by avoiding the need to define it.

In this next clip from her cross-examination, Gadfly invites you to see Beck Pooley avoid similar traps set by the Marketer attorney in questions about the definitions of “spot zoning” and “non-conforming,” as well as her ability to avoid answering key questions “yes” or “no” as the attorney urges — rather, turning her answers into mini-lectures that effectively amplify her conclusions and show her grasp of the subject.

Thus, in Gadfly’s opinion, the cross-examination did not “touch” the two main conclusions in the testimony of the neighbors’ expert witness.

Now the testimony of other neighbor witnesses (with whom Gadfly followers will be familiar) the night of December 11 did not go as well for reasons that might surprise you.

to be continued . . .

91st in a series of posts on 2 W. Market St

So — trying to keep things simple for you — this controversy begins with the “corner-store ordinance” on the books as part of the revision of the City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning code revisions about a decade ago.

The purpose of the corner store ordinance was to permit those properties originally designed to have a first-floor store but which had been converted into living spaces over time to be used again as stores.

Once this particular architectural configuration (the punched-in corner entrance) is pointed out to you, you, like me, will see they are abundant throughout the City.  They are distinctive architecturally.

Gadfly could probably find 5-10 without any trouble within a half-hour walking radius of both his home and work place.

The thrust of the owners of 2 W. Market’s efforts, including the text amendment now under fire, is to make this below kind of building originally designed to be a home equate with those originally designed as a store — and to allow a business use there.

If you put the four pictures together and played the Sesame Street “which one doesn’t belong” game, the young ‘uns wouldn’t strain. Yet Commission and Council members did.

At the December 11 Zoning Hearing Board meeting, the first witness  — an “expert witness” — for the neighbors was Gadfly follower Karen Beck Pooley.

What conclusions did expert witness Beck Pooley reach?

1) “The amendment didn’t clearly articulate the planning priorities set out in the Comprehensive Plan.”

2) “It was very unclear as to how the recommended adjustment would affect properties throughout the City.”

Where does thinking about zoning begin, according to expert witness Beck Pooley? The City Comprehensive Plan.

“The new Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2009. That’s where the community’s priorities, vision, how it wants to see properties used . . . what it’s overall priorities are for how the City’s going to function and how people are going to interact in different spaces throughout the City. That’s set out first, established by that Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance is the tool the City has to control the way development happens . . . to be in accordance with the priorities set out in that Plan.”

What did expert witness Beck Pooley see comparing the text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance?

“I was taken aback at how different it was from the original intent of the ordinance. . . . The previous ordinance clearly stemmed from the City contemplating mixed uses, thinking about how a variety of uses existed in neighborhoods, harkened back to historical uses of properties in those neighborhoods . . . . The amendment operated in a very different way to actually allow non-conforming uses to expand which is sort of the opposite of what the typical zoning ordinance does.”

Makes sense to Gadfly. Throughout the long controversy Gadfly wondered about the silence surrounding the Comprehensive Plan in the proposer’s arguments, a Plan that Gadfly began to think of as analogous to a constitution. How could the amendment be good if it is not in accord with the constitution, thought Gadfly.

And, yes, the range, the impact of this amendment tailored to one property on other properties was never, never settled, so how could one vote for its passage?

Are you with me?

Seems a good start for the neighbors challenging the amendment.

Let’s see where the argument goes.