Don Haddix
10-08-2008, 12:50 PM
I have noticed of late Mayor Logsdon is using his portion of the Update to defend his positions.
That bothers me in the sense that since it is an official PTC document some interpret it as speaking for the whole Council. But those in the know are well aware that is not the fact. Nor does it paint the full picture.
In example, he mentions going over 35' enables us to get more protection and benefits. Actually, it is an excuse to grant over 35', which is not a problem for Logsdon.
The real solution is why I had the GC and LUC ordinance revisions pulled to have more changes added. Changes such as adding in the additional requirements for increased buffers and so on near residential, an absolute cap of 35' and not allowing hotels or motels to convert to long term stay facilities. That removes any needed to give the developer more to get what can be required by existing ordinance, if passed. Not a cloak to give developers Big Boxes and extra total square footage instead of just saying someone wants them to have it.
While on Big Boxes, the Big Box ordinance was created with an absolute cap of 32,000 sq' per building and 150,000 for the whole site. The last Council, including three on this Council, added the Special Use permit to allow for adding Big Boxes and larger developments.
But if there is a change of majority on the next Council there is an excellent chance the SUP will be removed.
CCD on 54 W was used as an example. Fact is Doug McMurrain stated he could not turn a profit without Big Boxes. In response, in 3-2 votes, the Line Creek roads were abandoned, Big Boxes allowed and an extra 25,000 sq' granted, which is not making a development better, but enabling it. Else CCD would not have waited over 18 months to get those allowances, but simply built, sold/rented and been gone.
Nor do I like a developer being spoken of as equal to a resident. Doug McMurrain, in example, is not a resident of PTC, but Boulder, CO. He bought property here as a capital risk venture. That does not mean he is guaranteed to make a profit or that he will succeed.
Yes, developers have rights under our ordinance, no doubt about it. But ordinances are written to protect PTC and its residents, not speculators.
Sure, we welcome good development and work with such. But not all development is good. Bad development should not be encourage. And we should and do bar such as much as possible via ordinances.
I have no problem with a totally different point of view than mine being expressed. But it should be framed as "I" statements, not "we."
Just some counter points of view stated here for consideration.
Thanks for reading.
That bothers me in the sense that since it is an official PTC document some interpret it as speaking for the whole Council. But those in the know are well aware that is not the fact. Nor does it paint the full picture.
In example, he mentions going over 35' enables us to get more protection and benefits. Actually, it is an excuse to grant over 35', which is not a problem for Logsdon.
The real solution is why I had the GC and LUC ordinance revisions pulled to have more changes added. Changes such as adding in the additional requirements for increased buffers and so on near residential, an absolute cap of 35' and not allowing hotels or motels to convert to long term stay facilities. That removes any needed to give the developer more to get what can be required by existing ordinance, if passed. Not a cloak to give developers Big Boxes and extra total square footage instead of just saying someone wants them to have it.
While on Big Boxes, the Big Box ordinance was created with an absolute cap of 32,000 sq' per building and 150,000 for the whole site. The last Council, including three on this Council, added the Special Use permit to allow for adding Big Boxes and larger developments.
But if there is a change of majority on the next Council there is an excellent chance the SUP will be removed.
CCD on 54 W was used as an example. Fact is Doug McMurrain stated he could not turn a profit without Big Boxes. In response, in 3-2 votes, the Line Creek roads were abandoned, Big Boxes allowed and an extra 25,000 sq' granted, which is not making a development better, but enabling it. Else CCD would not have waited over 18 months to get those allowances, but simply built, sold/rented and been gone.
Nor do I like a developer being spoken of as equal to a resident. Doug McMurrain, in example, is not a resident of PTC, but Boulder, CO. He bought property here as a capital risk venture. That does not mean he is guaranteed to make a profit or that he will succeed.
Yes, developers have rights under our ordinance, no doubt about it. But ordinances are written to protect PTC and its residents, not speculators.
Sure, we welcome good development and work with such. But not all development is good. Bad development should not be encourage. And we should and do bar such as much as possible via ordinances.
I have no problem with a totally different point of view than mine being expressed. But it should be framed as "I" statements, not "we."
Just some counter points of view stated here for consideration.
Thanks for reading.