CSD Administration Planning to Move Into New Beacon Hill Offices in May
Decatur Metro | March 6, 2014 | 9:09 amFrom Superintendent Phyllis Edwards’ note to the Board in preparation for next Tuesday’s meeting…
Beacon Administrative Offices are coming along. Thanks to Mary Farmer and Jason Ware for shepherding this process. Mary Farmer and team are set to go over first to get technology going. Then the Central Office team will move in shifts- first floor than second floor. We hope to have the May Board Meeting in our new facility.
What? No, Free Beacon Hill! comments?
Well, it WAS a school once…heck, I’ll join anyone who wants to give Beacon Hill back to the original residents who lost more than they ever gained from urban renewal.
I’m just glad that the flood plain and speedway that doomed Westchester as an elementary school have disappeared and it can reopen again. Although I’ll miss the classy parking on the lawn…..
Ahh- but Decatur Housing Authority continues the lineage of “urban renewal” segregationist design with the current Gateway plan just across the street- so one step forward , two steps back.
Please explain further so that we can better understand what it is you’re wanting us to consider.
” we can better understand what it is you’re wanting us to consider.” –
Don’t know who the “we” and “us” is I’m addressing, but the current Gateway proposal is basically a repeat of what was there before: an isolated GC “Gated Community” in the heart of the commercial district. It should not be a part of our urban design in 2014 Decatur.
We and us are the folks reading your comment(s) on Decatur Metro. You want to engage in a discussion or at least get folks to think harder on where you’re coming from on it, right? Or that’s what I thought you were doing. If it was just meant to be a one and done statement, then please pardon that I asked.
Deanne – you had been referenced on another thread as having some special knowledge about developments within the city, so I didn’t know if you possibly represented an entity of which I was unaware .
Here is what I’m referring to on the Avondale Marta Thread – “And I believe that the Gateway property is not too far from the development next to the high school which will have a large retail component (maybe Deanne can fill in the blanks there.)”
No Surprise, I’m just a resident who closely follows City of Decatur doings, mostly because I enjoy it, but lately even more so out of concern for how the doing is getting done. With the surrounding area now hot on developers’ radars, I’ve been trying to do my part to ensure that what happens has input from the folks who live around it. For the past two years, I’ve been serving on the cross-neighborhoods committee working with developers on major projects happening near the top end of my street– Church St/N. Decatur Rd/Scott Blvd. Our committee seeks to establish ongoing working relationships with the developers to ensure that the changes will benefit our community, now and long term. (You may not be familiar with our committee’s efforts as we spend our time actually doing, not holding press conferences as Good Growth DeKalb, the WeHateWalmart group, does. Info on the projects we’re involved with can be found on MANA’s website: http://www.medlockpark.org.)
It’s my hope that City of Decatur residents will also be given the opportunity to collaborate with developers on the overall vision for downtown as it morphs into a more densely packed urban city. Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that residents may have signed over our voices with the Strategic Plan.
Deanne – I don’t really get what you’re saying with your last paragraph. We did put forth our collective vision in the strategic plan and, by and large, it is getting implemented. Developers have gained an appreciation for working in Decatur because they know the rules that they are going to be playing by, up front, and generally have a feel for what the community is interested in, based on the strategic plan. That is, we made a plan (actually many, updated through the years) and now we are executing it. What are you suggesting, that somehow the Strategic Plan is not our voice?
Geoff, soon after the Strategic Plan went into effect, the City streamlined the development guidelines and reduced the public input requirement. Now, only the immediately adjacent residents are invited to meet with a developer to have a say on what gets done. I think most of us would agree that approaching major scale development projects in such a way as to limit public input and to do it in such a piecemeal fashion won’t lend itself to evolving into the best overall downtown for the future. Yes, I get that the City has staff (and is quite willing to hire consultants for any needed assistance), but this is our community and it was always meant that residents would continue to play a vital role too.
(to continue because I just realized my edit didn’t take)
To your point about how developers now know the rules they’ll be playing by, based on some things that have occurred over the last year or two, I’m not so certain that all developers are playing with the same set of rules. I can definitely point to a specific situation where the rules were tossed and a redrawn plan bypassed the Planning Commission and was submitted directly to the City Commission for approval. It was not only unusual for City of Decatur, but unusual for the development process anywhere. (I happened to be sitting with the Selig folks at that meeting, and it was all I could do to keep them in their chairs. They were absolutely floored by what transpired– they’d never seen anything like it in all their years of attending meetings in different counties/cities.)
Deanne – What do you suppose the city’s motivation would be for following a path that “won’t lend itself to evolving into the best overall downtown?”
The same crew that has brought us what we have today is still at city hall. They were there when the original plan was put in place 30 years ago – they were there when it was updated 13 years ago, and updated 3 years ago. Is there some nefarious plot afoot that we should know about? Are they guiding us in a direction that “we” haven’t agreed upon?
Bottom line for me is – the process has been clear, the strategy and goals are clear. We don’t need to require a separate public input process for every structure being built in town that meets current zonings, do we? No other city does that.
Geoff, huh?? I’ve expressed that limiting the public input process doesn’t serve our community the best. Granted, I’ve probably gotten spoiled by how much the County does value it. It’s not quite clear to me why you think that public input is a negative thing. All I’m wanting is for the City to allow residents, not just immediate neighbors, to participate in the meeting with the developers since how the City grows affects us all. Besides it just being the right thing to do (in my mind at least), it’d also keep the immediate neighbors from being cast as NIMBYs as if they’re the only ones who may have any concerns about the plans. The issues that the 315 W. Ponce neighbors raised were valid and look at the awful way they got knocked for it. (Oddly, there was almost no discussion about the City’s closed door legal settlement that occurred around that project.) I definitely have concerns over how some of the decisions are being made, and for that matter, how the City is monitoring all of the commercial and residential projects going on. I’m glad that you have unshakeable faith in City staff. For years I have too. It’s only of late that I’ve had reason to question how things are being handled– or not. I’d very much like to have my concerns eased so that I can get back to cheerleading the City alongside you.
Apologies if you know something I don’t, Deanne, but I was under the impression that the Gannons brought suit against the developer at 315 and that the two parties settled the issue(s) out of court. Is that not correct? If it is, how was it the city’s closed door settlement? I don’t see how they were a party.
Thanks for any clarification.
Deanne – I have no problems with public input into important community decisions. In fact, like you, I value it. I just don’t agree with you that there is some movement afoot to tamp it down for some reason. We have more opportunities to be heard in this community than in most. At some point you have to stop taking input and let the private sector do its thing – otherwise no development will happen.
You tout the County’s community input process into development, but I ask you: how much quality development has actually been put on the ground in the county? Whose growth is smarter? Who wins awards for downtown development – the city or the county? I’m not saying this to cheer lead anyone in particular, it’s just obvious that there are processes that work and processes that don’t work, and the proof is what gets put on the ground.
Scott, that’s how it came across to me. You may recall that Fred Boykin got scolded on here for violating the confidentiality agreement having to do with that settlement. During a City Meeting around that same time, the Mayor referenced a closed executive session to settle a legal matter. Could be that it was an entirely separate legal issue, but then I’m not sure what would explain why Fred as a commissioner would have been privy to the details of the confidential settlement if it was just between the two private parties. Also, back during the neighbors’ ZBA hearing on it, Mark Gannon laid out definite concerns regarding the handling of the bank drive-thru. Two ZBA members cited those same concerns when voting in the neighbors’ favor. Seems odd to me that Mark Gannon would just up and drop that– not saying he didn’t since obviously I don’t know. Since you seem to be pretty certain that the City wasn’t involved in the suit (and I’m guessing that you’d say so if you thought the City had had further private discussions with either party), perhaps you can help clear up how Fred may have learned of the details and what led to the drive-thru thing becoming a a non-issue?
Actually I don’t have certainty, Deanne, which is why I was asking. In case you did. As I understand it, there was the issue of whether or not the city properly applied the zoning regs in their review and approval of the project, which was raised by the neighbors and then resolved in the city’s favor through a ruling by the ZBA. But then there was a suit brought by the Gannons against, I thought, the developer, which was filed in DeKalb Court and then settled before it went to trial. Maybe that’s where the confusion arises?
Geoff, you know that I always root for folks when I see them trying hard to turn something around. Based on the meetings I’ve attended and the public engagement process that the Commissioners expect from developers, I feel they’re on their way to getting things re-tracked. The County is well aware that its entire system needs overhauling, and is working on that now. Take part where you can to help get things to where they should be. We’re all DeKalb residents, so why wouldn’t we want to see them succeed?
Ack! Scott- reply’s below. (Or if this messes up too, well…maybe it’s a sign we should start again another day! :0)
No Surprise, to return us to the original threadjack :0) …
2/11/14 Planning Commission minutes that cover the Gateway project:
http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4791
(Pages 4-7)
And you are saying that I jacked this thread? 😉
Scott, could be that that’s what happened. I’m still curious to know how Fred got filled in. At any rate, what I do know is that with each bit of confusion, while it may seem perfectly normal to the City staff handling it and to the Commissioners who get updates, it’s starting to add to an increasing feeling of uneasiness for some of us residents.