Central First: Political Prooftexting

If you have not read the front page article this week, please do, as I will not repeat the details of the great rezoning controversy that has left a half abandoned building standing in Central’s most historic intersection.  Rather, I would like to focus on this week’s Political Prooftexting.  After having two weeks to come up with good reasons for having denied a developer the right to replace Central’s biggest eyesore of a building, Council Members Messina and LoBue each sent out emails this week trying to justify the action based on an unrelated 2010 rezoning case.  This is especially bothersome to me because the case they referenced never even made it to City Council since it was deferred by Planning and Zoning.  There actually WAS a case almost identical to the current one that DID come before this City Council that  SHOULD have been used as the standard to APPROVE the current request.  (For the record, I believe the 2011 rezoning approval was handled correctly by the applicant and I do believe that rezoning it to LC1 was a good decision and was in keeping with the Master Plan for City Center.)

There was only one other rezoning decisions by City Council in City Center since the Master Plan was adopted.  I am going on the assumption that Council Members who relied on a Planning and Zoning deferral that kind of looked like it proved their point, would have at least LOOKED at the much more recent decision that shoots holes in their “consistency” excuse for denying the current request.  If that is the case, this is classic Political Prooftexting.

I always like to leave people room for a graceful “out”.  Perhaps Messina, Washington and LoBue DID NOT look for any other zoning decisions in City Center after finding the two year old Planning and Zoning case and never even saw the very similar case from 12 months agothat was approved unanimously by the City Council, even though they also heard and VOTED on that case.  (This is the part where I will get accused of picking on the same three Council Members.)   Just as in the Floodplain Study and the Legal Fees Budget, why was the research not done?  OK, so let’s say it was an oversight.  I say admit the oversight, apologize to the citizen, and put the matter back on the next City Council agenda for reconsideration and a vote consistent with the 2011 rezoning approval. 

There is another approach that I like even more.  Maybe our Council Members should stop the “surprise/ambush” tactics.  It only took me 20 minutes to scroll through the Council minutes on the City website to find the only similar case in existence, and that case supported approving the rezoning.  I am fairly certain that if Council Members Messina, Washington or LoBue had called the developer a week before the Council meeting and expressed their concern over “consistency” with the 2010 P&Z deferral, the developer would certainly have had the sense to research the issue at least as well as the newspaper guy.  Council Members could also have pointed out to the applicant prior to the meeting that they were concerned about the anticipated impact of the "City Center" zoning, or that they were concerned about the widening of the streets in that intersection.  In short, they held their objections and concerns and then lobbed them like ammunition DURING the Council Meeting in order to justify the denial of the request.  How about the next time Council Members intend to shoot down a rezoning request of a Central Citizen that at least ONE of them have the common decency to call the citizen and share the concern BEFORE the Council meeting and allow the citizen to prepare an answer.  I spoke to the citizen, and that did not happen.  Council Members, the citizens of Central are NOT the enemy trying harm the City, they ARE the City trying to work WITH our elected representatives to transact business and move Central forward.  In court cases the opposing side is REQUIRED to share evidence like that.  In Central I would think common decency and a desire to serve all of the people of Central would be enough of a reason.