This was already an issue because the anti-overlay group had recruited a candidate. [Sylvan Park council candidate Katherine] Beasley is only running on one issue. I'm trying to reslove the issue and take it off the table so that the campaigns can revolve around education, funding of basic services, and other issues of importance, Beasley is running a soley [sic] anti-overlay campaign .... the [January-February 2006] Council survey [of Sylvan Park on the overlay] was heavily dominated by absentee landlords. Remove absentee landlords, and a majority of the neighborhood wanted the overlay. The survey wasn't fair. One developer had subdivided property and voted against the overlay 31 times. I listened to resident property owners, when you look at resident property owners there is a majority. It's about preserving and protecting historic neighborhoods.It sounds like I was not too far off the mark when I judged Mr. Summers as tainting the idea of the overlay by using it against his opponents. When he says that he is going to take it off the table, is he saying that he's bringing it back up so that it can be defeated and thus no longer an issue? If not, what the heck does he mean?
Friday, June 01, 2007
Here's what council member and at-large council candidate John Summers told NashPo about bringing the Sylvan Park Overlay Bill back up for third reading: