Yesterday's City Commission Workshop Meeting - 8/11

First of all, I was unable to attend last night's workshop meeting. I understand that it was available streaming over the Internet, which is good. However, given my computer situation and other competing priorities, it was impossible for me to listen to it. Today, the Clerks office was kind enough to make a copy of the CD recording of the meeting, so I'll be able to listen to it as time permits.

A couple things that I have heard since this meeting disturb me and I wanted to share them with you. I understand that Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Bates were not in attendance last night. The administration was represented by Laura Hannah. Mr. Karns was also there as well as Mr. Kroll from Public Works. Rachel Bach, Director of Community Services was there as well as Corey O'Gorman - who is the city's project manager for the beach redevelopment.

There is much talk about the City issuing a new "deadline" for the site plan to be submitted - October 17th. Let me ask a what should be an obvious question - how can the City Commission decide to require anything through a workshop? They aren't allowed to take action at a workshop. Furthermore, if they are talking about a new deadline, aren't they talking about some sort of amendment to the development agreement with Greater Bay? And, isn't a contract an agreement between two parties - not just agreement by one? I am hoping that Mr. Karns was able to point this out to the Mayor and the City Commission.

Yes, most of us would like to see progress and it would be nice to have the site plan to review and adjust as needed. But there are certain conditions that need to preceed that. Apparently, the City has not been hastily responding to the various legal actions. Each day that passes makes those that want to keep the beach as is, or just not see the Greater Bay project go forward, happier and happier - now nearly to the point of giddiness. Is someone making sure, in a behind-the-scenes sort of way, that progress doesn't happen here?

And the demolition of the existing building was discussed - but no funding source has been identified to tear it down. I hope that those in decision-making positions realize that once the tenants are out - March 31st, 2009, it will take a lot more to work after that to prepare the building for demolition and restore the site to something that will be appealing to view. I would be surpised if there isn't some sort of asbestos abatement required.

I'll keep looking for more information and let you know more after I hear what transpired at the WORKSHOP meeting.

By the way, in case we have forgotten: - Get the definition of public private partnership on BusinessDictionary.com