315 Meeting #1: Open Thread
Decatur Metro | October 15, 2008
Scott's Pic - 315 Meeting (Otis White at Right)
UPDATE II: The AJC reports from the meeting here and InDecatur has a nice first-hand report from participant Joe Winter.
—————————————
UPDATE: Sounds positive so far! Scott is good enough to write in with a summary of the beginning of the meeting..
“The meeting was set up so that people were arranged in groups of about six or eight people. Otis White made some initial remarks, establishing at the onset that the goal was to ensure that everyone with any desire to contribute could be heard. His point was that, over the past year, many voices have emerged — some loud and some more measured — and that the possibility certainly existed that there were others with a stake in the outcome who have yet to participate in the discourse.”
Then the neighborhood, developer and city were allowed to make opening statements. Though there was some resistance, many in the neighborhood seemed to agree with Mr. White that it would be worth while to get everyone on the same page. Scott continues…
“After remarks from the various parties, the individual groups went to work on their first task: Identify their key concerns about, as well as their aspirations for, the project. Once those had been collectively presented back to the whole room, they were given a second task of taking one of their aspirations and brainstorming on ways the developer could reasonably address them.”
Beyond that point, we’ll need the rest of you to fill in the holes on your views and impressions. Sounds like it had the potential to be a fruitful meeting!
—————————————-
So, here’s the rub. I can’t attend the 315 meeting this evening. Other commitments demand the Metro’s attention (wow…that name sounds so stupid).
The good news is you won’t have to endure my usual morning-after report, full of rambling tangents and lazy summaries. The bad news is: you gotta fill me in.
How did the meeting go? Was the place packed? How effective was Otis White? Did we make any progress on the issues at hand or did it devolve into an “I hate you! I hate you more!” battle of wits?
Also, even if you don’t generally like to comment because of your fear of blowhards (like myself) asking you 10,000 follow up questions, you can still make yourself heard by taking advantage of this site’s newest feature: polling!
Cool, huh?
Latest from Decaturish
Short recap of the meeting on AJC.com: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2008/10/15/decatur_discussion.html
From the AJC:
Once the discussions began, Wardell Castles, who lives near the proposed development, told his group he’s concerned about the magnitude of the project which calls for a parking deck that would be shared by office tenants and apartment residents.
Neighbors also expressed they fear parking would spill over into their narrow streets and worry about construction noise and the quality of the proposed development.
Castles participated in the process, but outside the meeting indicated he didn’t think it had much merit. “The purpose of this meeting is for the City Council to at least say they had a roundtable discussion,” he said.
Nice effort, Wardell.
Scott –
Thanks for the summary.
What’s your estimate of how many people attended this meeting ? From the photo it looks like way less than the ZBA meeting. Did any City officials participate in the group discussions?
fifi – To answer your questions, just over 50 people signed in. Several City officials participated, actually. There were several members of the DDA and some planning commission folks scattered amongst the various work groups. Our group had both a member of the DDA as well as a very nice young gentleman who was there from the City development office. The man from the development office was apparently a recent hire and was asked to just observe and learn from but not directly participate in the discussion. Many City commissioners were present at the meeting, as well and City management personnel, did they not participate in the roundtables themselves.
You know, Fifi, all my training was telling me to do a head count and dang if I didn’t forget. Nonetheless, I seem to recall the room shaking out as six or seven groups, each with seven or eight people. So I’d say that around 50 is probably in the ballpark.
It was definitely fewer people that the ZBA appeals meeting, and *way* less charged emotionally. Based on other experiences I’ve had in public process, I would attribute this to 1) meeting fatigue; 2) skepticism about the initiative (its legitimacy or potential effectiveness); and 3) the sad reality that it’s far easier to complain about something than it is to roll up one’s sleeve and try to make it better.
I left about 45 minutes before the end so I’ll rely on others for the closing summary but, from what I saw, I’m comfortable saying there are surely no remaining questions as to what the neighborhood, in its entirety, is anxious about. Whether or not they have realistic expectations or the degree to which the developer will make a genuine effort to redesign towards middle ground remains to be seen.
DM, I thought initially it was going to be two meetings with Mr. White. Can you dig into what the next steps will be?
Thanks guys.
If this is a sincere effort by the City and the developer toclarify the neighborhood position and make some modifications based on those concerns, then this sounds like a positive step.
I guess time will tell…….
Scott et all…
Linda was good enough to give me this update about next steps…
“The way the left it last night was that Otis was going to transcribe all of the notes (people sat in small groups and there was a scribe for each group who wrote the comments on a big tablet that was on an easel) and send them to everyone who had signed in. He said he would be discussing the next step(s) with Peggy and get back to everyone via email.”
Scott – my understanding is that there were two meetings planned initially. Mr. White will probably be using the results of this discussion as a deterministic factor as to whether another is warranted. He expects to get the results back to all attendees within 14 days, if I recall his closing comments correctly. My take on next steps is everything is really in a holding pattern until the results come back to us from Mr. White’s evaluation.
I would offer some additional factors for the reduced participation last night. First, there was a Presidential debate last night and the meeting started at around what is dinner time for a lot of people, which probably reduced participation for some… Second, the structure of last night’s meeting (and really, the entire formal process) is much more confrontational in its overall structure and therefore results in a more charged atmosphere. Finally, the demeanor of Mr. White’s meeting really reflected what I’ve been saying /all along/ about how this community has been actively engaged in this process — some for around a year, now — researching possible alternatives, working through complex City zoning codes, learning about what has worked and not worked in other communities, sharing ideas and knowledge with each other and participating in as many discussion points with developers and the City as the process has allowed. After the fairly disappointing focus group discussions and the general negativity surrounding the aforementioned official processes, many were looking at this meeting as a potentially positive way to share their ideas about this proposal and again try to move forward toward something that works better for everyone.
Whether this discussion structure was a success or not remains to be seen, but I for one thought it was worth the 2 and a half hours or so to participate and meet some new folks from around town. I can’t speak for everyone, I suppose, but I’m glad I went.
I agree, Baron. I should have mentioned the debates, especially since it was Mr. White’s go-to quip in setting the tone for the evening.
I also agree that, of those that came (and 50 certainly doesn’t qualify as a disappointing turnout for a participatory meeting), the sense of optimism and willingness to make progress was palpable. I don’t think there’s been any question — at least not in what I’ve observed — as to the neighborhood’s level of engagement over the past year. Pretty much everyone recognizes that you all have worked very hard. Instead, I think the greater public perception revolves around differing views on whether the neighborhood sees the process as one of negotiation or one of demands; and whether the developer sees it as one of collaboration or one of lip-service.
One question I had for you: During the opening remarks, when the woman speaking on behalf of the neighborhood was describing all the people and work involved over the past year, she seemed to indicate that part of the friction in the process came from the fact that different neighbors were involved at different stages and that not everyone in the neighborhood agreed that, at any particular time, the group at the helm was speaking for them.
Do you get the sense, after last night’s meeting, that the neighborhood is more united now in their collective goals?
Thanks.
Scott,
Sorry I didn’t answer your question earlier, I’ve been busy with many other things and, well, I kinda forgot until just now.
The short answer to your question is: the neighborhood seems neither more nor less united to me after the meeting — it has always been united under the same collective set of concerns and aspirations, to use Otis’ lingo, from very early in the process when it became evident what those were. Those same issues resonated loud and clear at the roundtables, too.
To me, the fact that the groups so readily converged to consensus reinforces not only the history of our neighborhood’s cohesion around these issues but also how obvious these issues are to other folks — including those members of the various City boards and commissions that participated in the roundtables alongside residents.
To explain a bit further:
We’ve always known there were concerns around density (and related issues – sized more appropriately for existing neighborhood, high density relative to R-60 single family, siting of density on property, and more), parking (adequacy, ability of shared parking to work in this instance, overflow into neighborhood streets and existing tension with surrounding business parking, for example) and traffic (increased numbers, cut-thru traffic in general, compliance with speed limits and stop signs, safety of pedestrians and cyclists and other ‘non-car’ users of our streets). We’ve always wanted this to be a quality, long-term construction that is appropriate for its context which includes 2 abutting residential streets in a neighborhood of 217 mostly older single-story single-family homes. We’ve always wanted a proposal based on an appropriate density of 43 units per acre calculated against /actual buildable land/, that provides an adequate number of parking spaces for that proposal, and that uses passive techniques to minimize impact of traffic on our neighborhood streets.
Part of what might be confusing you is your understanding of what Mrs. Davis said at the meeting. Her issue wasn’t that there was friction from the fact that different neighbors were involved at different stages or neighborhood confusion as to who was speaking for whom. She was really discussing more specifically the deficits of the original focus group process — that the focus group seemed to have great difficulty in convincing the developer to seriously consider its concerns. Also, as I recall there were some restrictions initially placed on the constituency of the focus group that kept some interested neighbors from participating in that process at a level that they wanted to.
To be honest, I think front-loading this meeting in the process instead of bringing it to bear at the 13th hour would have been much more effective for everyone.
You asked if I had the sense that the neighborhood was more united now. My feeling is fairly optimistic albeit slightly larger in scope … it is now very clear that this development, as proposed, brings significant impact to our neighborhood and our City as a whole… and that all parties seem to ‘get that’ now, and are working together to come up with a meaningful answer that works… It just remains to be seen what they come up with.