When you thought things could not get more slimy.

More than 20 years ago I sat in a civics class and learned to love democracy. Since that point I have found myself drawn in by the political rhetoric, the historical allusions of our founding fathers, and even though I have little faith in the individual person, have been left awe stuck by a process that gives us even footing. The Democratic process in this country lies upon a principle of one person-one vote. We can decry the illicit tactics of some who try to use money, power, or threats of violence in order to create a mockery of the political system. If I had wanted to deal with that BS on a daily basis I would have sold everything I owned, including my soul, and got a masters in campaign management from George Washington University and lived my life in Washington D.C (if even in a van down by the river). Instead I planned to teach about the system in which I fell in love with some decades ago; and while the plan changed my love of the system has not. But as I sit in my office overlooking the falling leaves in my front yard; nestled in the confines of my University Height’s little smurf village, I am sickened to my core of underhanded slimy tactics that violate while not the letter of the law the spirit.

While launching a last minute shadow write-in campaign is legal, it is and should be seen in our small community to be unethical. There was no way it was a last minute thought, or even a response to anything that had occurred since the closing date for candidates. And whatever snake oil councilwoman Quezada may attempt to sell us in her view of democracy she clearly needs more schooling on the subject.  “A healthy democracy. I disagree with another Councilor’s recent negative public comments with regard to write-in campaigns. My general observation is that consumers like choices, and voters do too.  More candidates and perspectives are a sign of a healthy democratic process, and I am happy for my ideas to compete with others as our residents elect City officials.” Let me explain something councilwoman, while options are good, information is key in the political process, and the half truth behind closed door misinformation that is being spread does nothing but feed into the fear mongering that has plagued this community in the last several elections. If this write-in campaign cant stand in the light of day, it is nothing more than the last act of a desperate group of people whose personal self interest they hold above that of the wants of the community as a whole. A real candidate would have come forward and allowed the community to weigh the stances on issues, not rumors, to hear policy and not fallacy, and been willing to stand in the light instead of lurk in the shadows.

But my thoughts here aren’t new, I have stated them before; but what has me fired up today is an unethical skirting of the spirit of campaign law that even the most novice of voters should be able to call foul. So I am going to post something off the Johnson County Iowa Auditor’s page word for word. “There may also be poll watchers representing candidates, parties, or ballot issues. They do not work for our office and they need to obey election laws. No campaigning of any sort is permitted within 300 feet of the outside entrance to the polling place or a satellite voting station. Usually, poll watchers simply keep track of who has voted. Candidates may not be at a polling place unless they are voting.” And yet our esteemed, ok I cant even type it…. Our slithering shadow lurking write-in candidate for mayor, Weldon “Wally” Heitman has planned on being a poll watcher. Now while in the eyes of the auditor he is not a candidate because he isnt Listed on the ballot, he has in action, and thought put himself forth as a candidate. It was only some concerns from election officials that dissuaded, or put a stop to this farce. This isn’t the political machine of Boss Tweed. We live in a flipping smurf village where we should all be able to be civil. This in its most basest form runs right up to the edge of political tampering. Every citizen of our small community should see this as just what it is, desperation. The desecration of the democratic process that this group attempts to perpetrate time and time again makes my skin crawl. I understand national politics is dirty, and unrightfully so. But at this level, in this instance where it is neighbors running against neighbors, and we all have to live with the decisions that are made, cant we at least be adults about it. This childish BS of rumor mills, and secret plans, trying to get around the rules is no way for adults to behave. But then again I probably shouldn’t be surprised, but I can be saddened and sickened. Do you want a city run by Junior High drama, histrionics, and an archaic vision of our town; or do you want responsible governance by well informed, approachable individuals who were not afraid of the scrutiny, and openness that comes with declaring to run. Vote Lane, Haverkamp, Aldrich, and Gahn and just for an extra measure lets show them that we don’t need any of them and write-in Virginia Miller, a name we can at least trust. Vote for our city, our community, and our future; not for dirty tricks, shadow campaigns, and falsehoods. Oh and in case you forgot, vote yes for staggered 4 year terms, I cant stomach this BS every 2 years from now on.

And for those who would wish to talk today, or if you were one of those chosen to receive councilwoman Quezada latest episode of the piss down my back and tell me its raining report and you want some clarification; I can be easily spotted just look for the brightest day glow orange shirt you can imagine and that will be me. And if by any chance you need assistance, a ride to the polling place, or anything else feel free to let me know.

University Heights is no place for shadow games.

As I sit down today, I do it through anger and disappointed eyes. What had appeared to be a rebuilding of a community after a fractured issue, and election with only the most minimal of controversy, has again turned into the slimy double speak and back room dealings I would expect to see in National Politics. The only thing separating University Heights City Council election tactics, and those deplored by anyone who truly values democracy, is that a last second write-in campaign has little chance of working in larger electorates.  This piece will not be short, nor will it be kind or overly polite.

Lets first deal with the basic tactic being used by this write-in campaign, the reason for its late launch, and the method of information dissemination being deployed. The hopes of these candidates is that voter turnout will be low. And that based on only 6 candidates running for 5 seats, that those who are less engaged in our community will stay home, and that they can use these small numbers to actually defeat the incumbent candidates. It is counter to the ideal of democracy to want low voter turnout, but this is the reason these wonderful models of civic responsibility chose not the file to run by the closing date. Because if they keep their plan a secret no one will know to push those supporting the other side to the polls. Some of you may think that I am simply assuming the worst, and casting dispersion where it may not belong. But if that were truly the case then why would our esteemed write-in candidate for Mayor Wally Heitman give the following statement. “My advice is to not speak with anyone that you know in is the Lane/Haverkamp camp.” So this simply highlights the shadowy nature of their endeavor.

I can further support that this is not an idea or campaign that has simply popped up. Because simply popping up would not enable the following  to be true. “At Sylvia’s suggestion, we have a slew of business cards which folks can carry into the polls so as to get the names correct.” Hmmmm, that seems to show some forethought in my opinion. But why am I surprised. This is the underhanded nature in which many of this group has behaved in past elections. The snake oil claims, and chicken little theatrics which have failed them in the past, have been pushed even further from the light of day, into the backroom shadows, and whispers of concealed conversations. Their positions fail to meet the scrutiny applied by informed and educated voters, so they pin their strategy upon trickery and sleight of hand.

Jaxson has found a love  for a game that infuriates me, and causes havoc in my house. The diminutive child has found that he can stand, crouch, or sit in places that clearly obscure his presence, and as you walk by, he jumps out and yells in an attempt to scare you or at least startle you. It is this type of game that the write-in campaign seems to be employee. It is a form of “Gotcha” politics that I cannot stomach. Which I suppose should not be of a surprise to me, seeing as we have been witnessing the same sort of behavior for the only sitting councilperson associated with this write in campaign. I had only hoped that adults would be able to act with a modicum more of maturity than my 7-year-old child.

Silvia Quezada has transformed for someone who I thought had the best interest of our city at heart, to the  ring master of her own private 3 ring circus. Lord Acton informed us that “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And in Silvia’s case this is a clear demonstration. But don’t take my word for it, simply watch any city council meeting in which her unique brand of histrionics are on display, and then tell me I am wrong. The number of individuals I have seen walk from a city council meeting shaking their head in dismay, coupled with the personal conversations I have had about her behavior are a clear representation that she belongs nowhere near a position of power. There comes a clear point in governance where what is right and prudent must outweigh any personal stake or preferences. When you would rather win than be right, then we have an issue. In her own campaign literature and in almost every meeting I have attended she has spoken of the need for transparency. But yet, in her own dealings with the public, and the council itself, she has edited email streams, misled her fellow councilors, and player the same brand of Gotcha politics that I discussed above. She herself, and the write-in campaign are touting the deplorable actions of the council in refusing to second Silvia’s motion to require the council to sign a no conflict of interest statement she sprung on the council at the last-minute. But lets delve a little more into this. If it were not for Silvia’s allusions to some acts of impropriety by the council the need for such an act would have never been brought up. And it seems that Silvia, and those claiming that this is some grand misdeed have all forgotten, that the city attorney clearly outlined that this fluff piece of a stalling tactic did nothing that wasn’t already covered by the oath of office that the council and mayor have sworn.  It is time to close the curtain on this circus, and for the citizens of this community to run this clown out of office. There is no room in our small community for parlor tricks, and political smoke screens.

So I have now briefly covered, ok I know it wasn’t all that brief, some of my issues with the write-in campaign, and with Silvia but i guess it is time to move towards some actual electoral issues. You are going to hear that this election may very well be used as a referendum on the TIF that was voted on to support the One University Place development. The write-in campaign and Silvia will tell you that it is costing the taxpayers money. I have written about this issue before, Super TIF and NIMBY and feel it would be an insult to your intelligence and a waste of my time, to tell you the same thing over and over again. If you currently have any questions with how the TIF is structured, and why the opposition is currently lying to be blunt, or misleading if I wanted to be nicer, please contact Mike Haverkamp and ask him to go over his TIF lesson plan with you. Or reach out to Tom Jackson who the city paid to advise us on this development, or any other host of UNBIASED sources. The fact that this issue is still raising its head after it has been voted on, and moved past makes me agitated. Some I will simply make one last and final statement, One University Place is costing you as a taxpayer exactly as much as St. Andrew Church is costing you…….. nothing. But we will move on.

The next issue I would like to bring up is that of staggered 4 year terms. In a small professionalized governing body it makes little sense to have the entire council and the mayor elected every 2 years.  If you spend even 2 months campaigning, you have wasted 1/12 of your term that was focused on something other than governing.  The opponents of this measure will shout loudly about keeping the council accountable to the electorate. I will remind you in the state of Iowa it takes simply a petition of cause signed by 5  members of the electorate to start removal of a city councilor from office. That seems pretty accountable to be. This is a progressive measure that will bring our community in line with the vast majority of municipalities across the country, many of which made this move decades ago. The more time spent dealing with actual issues as opposed to seeking office is a benefit to the entire community. Most responsible councilors, or prospective councilors don’t wait until a week before an election to start talking to voters, it takes time, and effort and distracts from actual issues. We live in a small community, your city council is approachable at the farmers market, at the city council meetings, or on the street, I cannot foresee a way for our council to be unaccountable unless we as an electorate tune out, and quit caring.

I support Mike Haverkamp, Jim Lane, Carla Aldrich, and Stephany Gahn for council. I find the write-in campaign to be a last-ditch effort of desperate individuals who lack the conviction and decorum to serve our community. I would admonish Dottie Maher for her mistaken tactic of trying to appeal to both sides by telling them both different stories. And as for Silvia, I cannot find words to express the immensity of my disappointment in your behavior, your ethics, and your character. In a community where we don’t all have to agree, but we should at least be able to be upfront and civil neighbors you have found a way to create conflict where there was none, to bring the worst of the political process to the forefront, and demonstrate a perverse sense of one-up-man-ship and gotcha politics that sickens me to my core.  Suffice it say you have clearly lost my vote, but to a greater concern for myself you have lost any respect that I could have had for you.

As always I am more than willing to hold conversations about this topic with anyone who wishes. I don’t hide my opinions in the shadows, and would be happy to hear your thoughts or opinions. I urge everyone to vote, and to vote their own personal conscience. See you at the polls.

Picking on Silvia.

As I trudged, ok jogged in,  through the rain for the University Heights City Council work session, I was preparing myself for a large group of dissenters, those who have for years tried to stall and halt this project. What I found was an almost empty room. Very few dissenters, and what appeared to be a productive meeting working through some of the small points of the developers agreement.

Although my personal feeling is that certain individual’s drastically over value their opinions and their worth or stake in the project, I can get past the 4 point agreement comparison, and the misguided attempt to describe the current PUD as a bait and switch perpetrated by the developer and the council. So everything was fine until Silvia called the citizens in attendance the peanut gallery. While I very clearly may be a nut, I would much rather consider myself some sort of exotic nut than just a common peanut.

I applaud Silvia for her efforts, her thoroughness, and her dedication to the process, but from me seat in the back I feel that sometimes the simplest things may be over thought. The discussion of the public use outdoor space in the project was a productive one I agree.  Sometimes Silvia’s examples get a little off the mark from my perspective. While it makes perfect sense to have a public space, for stopping on walks, meeting up with friends before going somewhere, or even staging some sort of event; the question of where would University Heights citizens protest brought a chuckle, because of course the answer is completely obvious. If I am going to protest I will clearly just set up directly in front of Silvia’s house…. DUH.

The second example that seemed almost to point of ludicrous was while discussing the ability of nonprofits to occupy the commercial space and therefore eat into the prospective tax revenue, she used  a soup kitchen example. We live in the shadow of Kinnick stadium, and we are worried about a soup kitchen. Yes I completely agree that the University coming in and occupying portions of the space would drastically decrease the proposed tax revenue for the city, and that this is something that should be protected against; but seriously a soup kitchen, not something I would expect to find in University heights, it would be out-of-place, and fail to meet its purpose.

Going further in our cavalcade of picking on Silvia brings us to the one thing that I found to almost be unnecessary in the developers agreement. I understand that the idea of renters in University Heights seems to be that we (yes I said we) are undesirables. We are transient, throw loud parties, and harms the peaceful serenity which University Heights so prides itself upon. But the simple fact that I have been here for 10 years, means I have a longer residency than a large portion of University Heights. University heights has a large transient population, be it the college students, graduate students, residents, or other professionals people move in and out of our community on a regular basis, and this transience leads to a lack of home ownership, and renting as a viable option.

So as we discuss putting a rental cap on the condos in the new development there are a few things for us to consider, Who will be renting these condos? And how does a condominium regime work? With such a high price point for the units, what you wont get is a bunch of privileged undergrads, or fraternity brothers or anything of the like. While Silvia cautioned us against the whole Animal House scenario with martini’s and caviar, I don’t see this as a viable likelihood in any way. The major reason based on the price, the secondary reason based on who else will be living in the building. This unit will have an unbelievable ability to self police these undesirable behaviors out before the city would even hear or have to be involved. We aren’t looking at some dormitory, but upscale luxury living quarters. I would put out the money for my undergrad to live there and very few others would either. The ecosystem itself will push towards ownership, and behaviors contingent with the rest of the community, I think any extra provisions are an unnecessary impediment.

But last but not least towards the end of the meeting discussing the provisions in the agreement that the developer has listed as things that could stall the progress of the development Silvia began to channel Iowa cinema, and came just short of stating “if you build it, they will buy” it was at this point that I was getting tired, and had to contain my laughter.

So while I have taken this space today to poke fun at Silvia, there is no harshness meant. The process appears to be moving, and all it truly needs now is a kick in the rear end, and some quick movement made towards so finalization of just what is going to happen.

Liar Liar pants on fire

So yesterday’s blog wasn’t the point in which to say this but I apologize for my absence  on Monday and Tuesday of this week; I have written before how stay at home parents don’t get sick days, and from those specific duties I don’t, but I did decide to put off writing in place of rest and recoup time. I had to be at least up to 80% by Tuesday night in order to attend the University Heights City Council meeting, because we all know that no one would want me to miss that. Ok who am I kidding there are several members of our small community who rejoice at my absence, and that is specifically one of the reasons I attend.

Today I want us to think about the primary purpose of local government. The farther away from the people a governing body gets generally the more out of touch with that populous the elected officials are. So local government gives each individual citizen the ability to communicate and express their wants, needs, and concerns about issues facing the local municipality in this instance.  There is a debate in congressional politics as to just what the money lobbyists spend actually buys, the cynical view is that it buys influence, and that by giving money to this candidate or that candidate that you can effectively influence public policy. A less cynical view is that by donating money to candidates, that you are buying not influence but access. This access in turn enables different groups the ability to state their case, their cause, or their wants to members of Congress.

Our local city council should in all actuality work more like the latter without the exchange of campaign donations being necessary. You see the wondrous thing about local government is that those who are interested, those who attend meetings, those who take the time to contact the city council have access. Whether or not Silvia Quesada shows up at your doorstep to look through your window to see what the view might be of the proposed development, or if Virginia Miller knocks on your door to ask if you would like a tree planted in the right of way in front of your house, or Zadok, Jim, or Mike simply respond to an email you sent, our small community offers each of us access to the process.

It appears that the problem or the disconnect with this concept comes in that some don’t just want access but they want influence and sometimes it seems undue influence. Not that it is necessary, but I thought I would use a quote from the UH-place facebook site to highlight this specific concept

“Now that the election dust has settled, it is time to get to work as a community on what will happen with the St. Andrew property development. Although one of the newly-elected council members mentioned in the Press-Citizen article on the day following the election his excitement about “finally having a green light for the development going forward,” UH Place hopes that the new council will “proceed with caution” and do as they promised–keep the expressed wishes of the community and the financial security of UH in mind a they work through the agreement with the developer. If the new council really wants to move forward and bring healing to the community (as mentioned in their campaign materials), they must be responsible. They must uphold their commitment to consider seriously all citizen feedback, including that from those who may not have voted for them.”

This statement can be read word for word in that the individuals who run UH-Place would like to foster a healing of the community while approaching a deliberate and sensible approach to the proposed project at the St. Andrew’s site. Or we can read it how it was really meant and see that although their hand picked candidates lost, and although the majority of the community wants to move in one direction they still want their voices to be heard and their wants and wishes to matter more than those of the rest of the community. I contend this in that despite efforts on my part to regain access and the ability to be able to share my voice with the community of the Uh-place page, I am still persona non grata. And that I have seen little or no want to compromise on their part.

The proposed development will be a monumental task for the council, it will require the ability to balance the needs of the community, the wants of the community(all sides) and the needs of the developer and church. All of these things will not always align, and making the tough choices is why these 5 individuals were elected. You and I get the easy job, we get to take credit when the council does something good, and place blame and bitch when they don’t. But each of us in the community must also understand that the outcome of this balancing act may not lend itself to each individuals idealized vision for the development; I mean seriously it isnt like I am going to get a bookstore or comic-book shop in the commercial portion now am I.

What highlights this need to point out the difference between the ability to have access and the ability to have influence is that certain individuals in our community continually point things out or make comments in the phrasing of “I dont like this”, “This isnt what I want”, and so on and so forth. The battle seems to have shifted from the front building being too high, increasing the traffic too much and things, to now the back building is too high, and we dont want the front building looking like a strip mall. The patience of this community in letting a concept develop into a plan is about the same as a toddler waiting on a snack; nonexistent.

Now I am going to the dark side in some’s opinion, and I am going to defend the evil of development. University Heights could use an expanded tax base, the developer bought the property in order to make money, and should be allowed to do so under the scrutiny and restrictions set by the council and the zoning, and my god, this talk of a 6 story building being a sky-scraping monstrosity is just absolutely ridiculous.  The detractors wanted a lower front building, and they were given it, and now that want a lower back building, before long I truly expect them to propose we just go back to one building, and maybe say build a church there. (Oh wait they have done that already). Far too often I think the council is stuck trying to deal with teenagers. All of us who are parents I am sure have tried a give in take in parenting, and many of us have been disappointed in that no matter how much we give, the children still want more and just take, and refuse to meet in the middle. Those who began in opposition to this development want to keep changing their objections, and moving the target that the council is aiming at. I personally find it frustrating, and counterproductive. But all citizens will be heard, that doesnt mean given their specific way. Learn to deal with it, it is called being an adult.

On a separate but related point. Silvia attempted to describe that she had made an effort to go and talk to the individuals who live in homes whose view and privacy might be affected by the proposed development. This was not done in a way to show that she had spoken with every possible individual, or that she was now speaking for all of those individuals, merely a statement that she was attempting to show due diligence. For her effort she got called out, castigated, bullied, and basically called a liar at the council meeting because 1 particular household was not home when she stopped by. The confrontational manner in which the issue was approached is reminiscent of something we might expect to see on a school yard, not in a city council meeting. I want to remind this individual that neither the world, the country, the state, our town, or this project revolves around them; and by stating such it is clearly time to grow up and leave the immature behavior at the door. Silvia is a likable, caring, and concerned councilor who is clearly doing everything she can to keep in touch with the people and be respectful of their opinions, even when being attacked. And while she is too nice to call you on your antics, no one has ever described me as nice. So once more just for the record, and in case the point was missed, take your overly aggressive bullying tactics elsewhere.

All in all the meeting was productive and efficient, there were only the one instance of minor fireworks, and the normal comments from the public that have been stated before and remain unchanged. As always some of the highlights come from being able to pick on Silvia, specifically her word choices, such as “summoned by the church”,it gave the image of being called to the principles office or more readily called in front of the Spanish Inquisition.(NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition.) and then there was “further flesh on the skeletal proposal” a much more poetic and descriptive phrase than I expected to note at a city council meeting . As the development plan moves forward I can only guess that the meetings will become more contentious, and that tempers we have seen bubbling may come out in force, and I would hope that we can all approach these matters as adults, but I for one wont hold my breath. And so endeth another tale of the University Heights City Council meetings.

What is the concept of Poopy?

Ok now that the cobwebs have cleared up, well pretty much, it is time to discuss what you have all been waiting for. Some are waiting expectantly for my offbeat take on the drama that is local politics, others may be waiting to see if they have made into my discussion whether positively or negatively. My blog is not to walk on eggshells, to make me the most popular person in my neighborhood, so I would be surprised if some people weren’t offended or put off by what I have to say. If by some miracle, certain people haven’t been yet; I will definitely try harder.

Wednesday’s meeting was a council work session, to ask questions of the developer and the architect. I would first like to commend both Jeff Maxwell and Kevin Monson for what I have to attribute to having the patience of Job. This process for anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock has gone on way to long, has changed the script, and the expectations way too often, and has been driven too much but the loudest voices in the room, instead of the wants and need of the community. The fact that they subject themselves to this ongoing headache is admirable.

There can be no doubt that Councilor Quezada did quite a bit of preparation and homework before the meeting, at times she seemed to be grilling Monson on every small aspect of the current Concept. But her questions were on point and gave a clear demonstration as to the wants of the community. The community wants some commercial amenities in close proximity to our homes. We want the structures to fit into the character of the community. (There may be some disagreement as to what that character is). She spoke to the sustainability of the development, the question of rental condos first sold ones, active versus dead spaces, and as we all have come to expect her own green movement bias in a discussion of eco-friendly systems. I have to take just a moment to poke fun at Silvia for her use of  multiple tenses of the word concept. From conceptualize to conception, it seems that every other word had something to do with concept, I think maybe the community should provide her with a Thesaurus.

And what we learned at most points was that all of these concerns were willing to be addressed in the project development as soon as they were sure the concept basics were acceptable. You could sense the frustration in the developer and architect that they have brought plan after plan after plan just to find them hung up by some other problem. The dragged feet of the past years has had a toll on the developers, the council, and the community as a whole. It is time to accept the inevitable, and give positive feedback as we move toward a new fixture in University Heights that we all can find merit in.

But I don’t have a ton more to say about the council discussion, it is the public comments where we get down to the real heart of the matter. I could go over the positive elements from where I sit, but that is not what I have much to say about. There were things I agreed with, things I thought had merit, and some things that made me laugh, and I found almost absurd.  So I will deal mainly with the last category. Why, because I am not a reporter, but much more a critic, and it is more interesting to read the criticism.

It was suggested that we bring in other architecture to let the council pick and choose the elements that they wanted to be included, and that we all needed to see a scale model. The model is an important aspect, because I know they aren’t cheap or easy to prepare, so the more models we request the more cost is involved, and truthfully, are any of those opposed going to be convinced of anything by looking at a model. I feel that we should engage in walking the tight rope between gaining as much information, exploring as many options as possible, while still keeping an eye on the cost efficiency of the requests we are making.

The next comments I want to discuss were those that were presented to the council in written form and read for the rest of us for a community member who could not be present. Unfortunately I was unable to grab a copy of them, so I have to go solely off my notes. But let me first point out that almost any comment coming from those who were originally on the other side of the last election, push, nay I say demand slow deliberate movement forward. Do they truly think the council is stupid, or that the rest of the community cant see the stalling tactics. While I understand the need for thoughtful deliberation, to understand the size and scale of the decisions being made, there comes a point where enough is enough and this trudging through the muddy minutia just to have yet another plan dragged down by some obscene objection has played itself out. So the calls for the independent accounting overviews, the outside concept designs and all of those other requests should just be left unsaid. The council is perfectly capable of watching the plan, evaluating the funding, and seeking outside sources if necessary, but the painting of the developer as pushing to build us a three little pig pop up development and running off with the bank just seems absurd. Secondly the characterization of the roof garden area of the back building as being a party room almost made me die laughing. Did I miss the memo that we were selling all of the condos to millionaire trust fund playboys? Does Iowa have some frat of over entitled Brats that I havent heard about? A rooftop garden, will be a wonderful amenity that can be rented out for weddings, receptions, and other higher scale functions, I really doubt we have to worry about Delta Tau Chi throwing a kegger there. (Applause if you got the reference, and a face plam for me if you did not). But dont worry, I can use hyperbole as well as anyone else, and maybe I will break out some of my own in the next meeting.

The other main complaint  was based on the height of the back building. Again I want the community to look at what they are asking. We don’t want this, we don’t want that, and we definitely don’t want to finance that; in this case certain  accommodations have to be made, and certain concessions need to be found. But “Golly Wiz that’s pretty tall” is a description we are given of the concept by one of the detractors, I almost expected Gomer Pyle to jump out and say shazaam. But we don’t want a strip mall in the front building and we don’t want the back building to be much taller than 4 stories, and we want it to have a small foot print. It is clear that some members of the community aren’t going to like whatever goes up, and they are perfectly well entitled to their opinions, but they shouldn’t carry any more weight that any other persons opinion.

When the height of the building was discussed and Monson pointed out a demonstration that was put together showing the visuals of such a project, and what the sight lines, and visual impact of the project would be; my most entertaining neighborhood malcontent called the presentation nothing but smoke and mirrors, and more entertainingly called it “Poopy”.  As the zoning restrictions, the reasoning behind the height, and other factors were attempting to be explained, all she could say was “I don’t care if it’s within the zoning.”  and more complaints that it will be too tall, and she didn’t like it. Ok, you don’t like it, noted….. can we please move on now. A scale model which will adequately show the height of the back building will be present at the next meeting from what I hear, and then we can see that we aren’t building the Empire State building in our back yard.

Unfortunately the grinches and murmurers sat too far away for me to hear the continual whispers, snide comments, and nitpicks during the meeting, but every time I looked that way, they were quick to cover their mouths with their notepads so I couldn’t even employ my superior lip-reading skills. And I don’t see the point in trying to learn to read minds before the next one, because I really don’t care that much, it just makes for some interesting writing at some points. We are moving in the right direction on this project, the council is being diligent, and the community has escaped with only the most minor of temper tantrums to this point. The pessimist in me knows that things will get much more heated before all is said any done, but my guess is it will be anything but dull. So strap on your seat-belts, take your heart medication and jump on board; scoot over Mae West, because its going to be a bumpy ride.

A More Mature University Heights

I am going to start off again by saying thanks to everyone who takes the time to read whatever it is I decide to write on a daily basis. I am a writer because I write, but being a writer that no one reads wouldnt be the same as being a writer who gets told repeatedly how much my readers enjoy my blog. I find it amazing that the same people read my blog whether I am going off about my children, my nerd passions, sports, or even local government, so thank you again to everyone who reads my blog

But as most of you can guess. today is going to cover my reaction to last nights University Heights city council meeting. I will first comment on how impressed I was with new counselors Virginia Miller, and Silvia Quesada on what I found to be highly detailed, and well drafted reports and presentations about their specific committee assignments. It could be easy for  them to just go through the motions, and put in an adequate effort, but far beyond that low threshold you can see the care, the passion and the dedication not only in the prepared reports but in their demeanor, and involvement in the meeting itself.

We were given a new “concept” for the Saint Andrew’s property. And the description that we were given, stressed this point; that it is just a concept, not a plan, because it would be unproductive to continue with plans that are just going to meet roadblocks. I need not break down the concept at this point, but I will make observations on how well it was received. In a issue which we know there is no shared vision, or unified support the comments were not as contentious as one might have suspected. The hostile fight that one might have been prepared for were absent last nights meeting. My new favorite snide curmudgeon only made minor comments about the proposal, shouting out you mean TIF, and snorting and a few chuckles later on. But for the most part the comments at least feigned support.

The most amazing change between January’s meeting, and last nights was the behavior of the audience. I railed against the sophomoric behavior displayed, the snide comments, the jokes, and singing at the expense of the council. Last night much of that was absent. I sat in the same spot, and surprisingly was surrounded by the same individuals, although they were much better behaved. Whether in a matter of a month they found maturity, or whether they were put onto my blog and read what I had to say about them is immaterial, the net effect was a win for  conscientious local governance. As the meeting drug on, there was mild snickering, and quiet whispers between 2 of the audience, but in comparison to the outright derision of before this can be tolerated.

I have nothing but a positive outlook on the future of this council, and the direction in which they are approaching the issues that face our small community. I have given my support in my writing, and will continue to do so with my time, and my opinions. The future is looking bright for University Heights, and I am glad to play whatever little part that I may. It is nice to come away with a positive feeling as opposed to frustration. And this could be a great sign of things to come. But either way, I will be there, watching, taking notes, and of course writing about everything that comes to mind.