Residents Meet Opposing Bus Station

Posted on August 4th, 2006 in Political Action.

THREE UNANIMOUS AGREEMENTS

1) The attendees unanimously agreed that they were opposed to the Holly Street Bus Terminal proposal, specifically qualifying “as they understand it”.

[The attendees noted that many details of the plan are not known, and that the City of Georgetown is at fault in this failure to publish full information – Ross Hunter moved for the issue of non-publication to be our primary point of agreement, but the consensus made was that we understood the proposal well enough to judge it on its merits.]

2) The attendees unanimously agreed that they could offer no opinion whatsoever about public transportation systems for Georgetown, since none had been proposed to public notice, and that this meeting was neither for nor against mass transit as a general concept, and that the concern of this meeting and its attendees was one specific proposal only, and not about mass transit in general, and that they wished the public at large to understand this distinction.

[A brief discussion about mass transit in general for Georgetown showed a variety of opinion, with no consensus possible. The question arose, was City government on current showing even competent to initiate such proposals.]

3) The attendees unanimously agreed that all future uses of the site targeted in the Bus Terminal proposal should first, conform to the current zoning, and then second, might be considered on its merits.

[All attendees agreed that any usage of any land in this area should aim to beautify the neighborhood rather than to blight it. They noted that debating land usage was a premature action. And as the governing principle of “unchanging zoning” was established, the attendees noted that the Bus Terminal proposal was fatally flawed in its very conception by requiring a change in current neighborhood zoning, regardless of any lesser merits it might possess.]

[see next page for additional elements of discussion…]

			
 

			
Pages:  1 2 3 4

One reply

  1. ross (blog author) says:

    Added on August 4th, 2006 at 7:13 pm

    The natural surmise is that this unusual delegation of responsibilities gave rise to the extreme invisibility of this project. And now when Tom Yantis and CARTS staff say they regret not making this project public earlier, they may indeed feel this way from their own discomfort, perhaps learning a political lesson for the very first time.

    The disconnection between City and voter seems more understandable now at least – Council slipped in its delegation of tasks, the City Manager ran with the assigned task. This reveals a hole in the fabric of delegation and accountability within our city government. The easy scapegoat in this issue is the City Manager’s office, but once the situation is better understood it may be enough simply to plug this hole and make sure the council doesn’t overstep appropriate bounds again. This is a political matter still to be addressed.

    Feel free to sign up and comment on this point if you want.