(Ed. note: What a difference a day makes? Should Evansville follow Oregon and just have a moratorium?
Friday, February 10, 2006
Mayoral Forum: Bauer Haus: Decker raises question of Smart Growth Plan frequency of Revision
It was just a short aside in the discussion on the future of Evansville and its Smart Growth Plan, but to The Observer, it was a matter worthy of further discussion.
In her remarks about the Smart Growth Plan, Sandy Decker referred to the long process of creating it, and said that there should be limits to quick revisions that circumvented the type of deliberative process that created it.
The Observer notes on the future agenda of the City meetings that they will consider amending the Smart Growth Plan prior to the annual target that was scheduled. Why? Just because it became commercially attractive to change some land from R1 to Commercial on Union Street. Why was not this a reasonably forseeable event when the Smart Growth Plan was designed last June?
Should revisions be a)weekly b)monthly c) yearly or d) any time one sees fit.
The deeper issue is whether a person could simply give 24 hours notice, modify an agenda and with little public input get a change in the smart growth plan that did not allow the public adequate time to get involved and express their view. This is no small matter. The essential core of Smart Growth is that the public has a right to participate in the decision, and quick modification of the plan that avoids public scrutiny is contrary to the intent of the law.
So---it was just a few words by Sandy Decker at the Bauer Haus. However, it might deserve further discussion.
This is your city. This is your election. What do you think about this issue? You make the call.
Posted by Evansville Observer at 9:28 AM
1 comments:
billconnors said...
The state Smart Growth law requires that any amendment to the Smart Growth Plan be adopted by the same process that was used to adopt the plan. On Feb. 14, the Common Council will hold a public hearing on an ordinance that would modify the future land use maps in the plan. The city published notice of the public hearing at least 30 days before the public hearing (we actually published it twice, but only one publication was required). There was a first reading of this ordinance on Jan. 10, and the proposed ordinance was subsequently published. Before an ordinance could be introduced to amend the plan, there needed to be a recommendation from the Plan Commission to amend the plan. On Jan. 3, the Plan Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Council amend the plan. So the public need not worry about someone sneaking through unnoticed amendments to the plan.
The Observer raises the issue of why the city did not realize the parcels that are proposed to be changed from residential to commercial were not marked as commercial in the first place. The consensus of those of us who were closely involved in the Smart Growth planning process is this was an oversight on our parts. The consultant prepared the first drafts of the future land use maps, and it was our job to review them in great detail and make changes before the plan was adopted. None of us remembers looking at or discussing this particular area of the map.
The plan says the Plan Commission should review the plan and consider recommending amendments to the plan at least once per year. Those involved in the Smart Growth planning process wanted to make sure everyone understood now and years from now that the plan is meant to be a living, breathing, changing document. The planning process should never stop. However, we do want to get away from the practice of making plan amendments in response to particular development proposals.
Bill Connors
Evansville City Administrator
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment