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.

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.

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.

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.”

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…….