There already was an official city sponsored disposition hearing where well over 100 residents testified against the land disposition (only 3 were in support). The city took notes. It appears Councilmembers McDuffie and Bowser are choosing to ignore that hearing because they do not like the outcome. Is it right for them to hold new hearings until they find a way to show support? They are not representing their constituents--they are representing their own interests and interests of their friends and business partners. Stop making the community re-testify. Represent those that did testify.
The prior 'hearing' was just an opportunity for public comment prior to declaring the land surplus. It was not a hearing of the actual Council or one of its committees, as this one is, because no paperwork had yet been filed.
I believe that some notes from that public meeting were submitted to the Council along with the surplus and disposition bills; however, you may be correct in assuming it does not capture the sentiment of that meeting.
If you would like to read the summary of the June 2013 meeting, Mat is correct that it is included in the filing for PR20-1081. The summary begins on page 11. If you attended and/or testified at the meeting, you can evaluate for yourself if they captured the sentiment of the meeting.
The filing also includes letters from citizens, some who mentioned they attended the meeting but did not speak, and other submitted their oral testimony in writing.
3 comments:
There already was an official city sponsored disposition hearing where well over 100 residents testified against the land disposition (only 3 were in support). The city took notes. It appears Councilmembers McDuffie and Bowser are choosing to ignore that hearing because they do not like the outcome. Is it right for them to hold new hearings until they find a way to show support? They are not representing their constituents--they are representing their own interests and interests of their friends and business partners. Stop making the community re-testify. Represent those that did testify.
Taxpayer,
The prior 'hearing' was just an opportunity for public comment prior to declaring the land surplus. It was not a hearing of the actual Council or one of its committees, as this one is, because no paperwork had yet been filed.
I believe that some notes from that public meeting were submitted to the Council along with the surplus and disposition bills; however, you may be correct in assuming it does not capture the sentiment of that meeting.
Mathew Bader
BCA MAG Representative
If you would like to read the summary of the June 2013 meeting, Mat is correct that it is included in the filing for PR20-1081. The summary begins on page 11. If you attended and/or testified at the meeting, you can evaluate for yourself if they captured the sentiment of the meeting.
The filing also includes letters from citizens, some who mentioned they attended the meeting but did not speak, and other submitted their oral testimony in writing.
http://lims.dccouncil.us/_layouts/15/uploader/Download.aspx?legislationid=32678&filename=PR20-1081-Introduction.pdf
Post a Comment