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
John Summers Gives His Reasons for Overlay Reintroduction
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:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another way to take it off the table would be to, you know, take it off the table, withdraw the bill.
ReplyDeleteIf he tables it in the parliamentary sense after it comes up on the agenda, then that effectively kills it, the only vote facing the council being whether or not to table it. So, in that sense if he puts it on the table, then he takes it off the table. Are we confused enough, yet?
ReplyDeleteI know I'm coming into this waaay late (and happily, of course, Summers finally did the right thing and withdrew the proposed bill) but when I found your blog I felt compelled to respond to his comment re: Katherine Beasley's supposed "one issue" campaign... it's true that the divisive and ugly nature of the whole overlay is what catapulted her into the race but Summers is off base when he says it's a single issue campaign. She is committed to actually listening to what the residents want and she'll abide by and promote THEIR agenda, not her own. I think you will find plenty of people who are leery of Summers' assertion that the absentee landlords skewed the overlay survey results. What were the specific numbers? Has he let anyone with a different opinion actually review that tally? Not that I have heard of.
ReplyDelete