Comments by the Public on Unagendaed Items and Commission Response from last night's meeting...(1/7/14)

This is worth watching as the issue of the lawsuit on the height limit election is discussed. First up, Ms. Anderson comments at the 15 second mark about how the December 2013 hearing before the judge was cancelled and it was her understanding that a new date needs to be set and she asked if the city has done anything to get with the Judge to come up with a new date. I think it's important to note that there are two parties to this lawsuit and the lawsuit is against the city. The person who filed the lawsuit is being represented, one would suppose, by an attorney. That party is equally as capable as the city to make contact with the judge for a new date. One would think that the onus would be on the party that feels aggrieved enough to file a lawsuit to make sure things move along quickly, not necessarily the city. I think she may be asking the question to the wrong person.

At the 9:40 mark in the video, the Mayor asks Mr. Torcivia, in response to Ms. Anderson question regarding a new hearing date for the lawsuit. Mr. Torcivia responded that the parties were notified shortly before the December hearing by the judge that he had a scheduling conflict and the hearing would be cancelled. Mr. Torcivia did not know the exact status, but indicated that he would get with the judge. He said that getting back on a judge's calendar can be a 6 to 8 week wait at times.

Then, as if we hadn't already heard enough of the issue, at the 14 minute mark in the video, cue the violins. Commissioner McVoy talks about the importance of this election held back in March and attempts to re-iterate what has already be iterated enough and the Mayor, rightly, attempts to quell the discussion. However, Commissioner McVoy asks if there is another way to get around state law and, by changing our land development regulations (that took eight years to do when we did it last), or some other measure. Mr. Torcivia was a bit fuzzy in his memory as this issue was discussed some six months ago, but he recalled Mr. Waters saying that it could be done, but through the required quasi-judicial hearings, re-doing the Comp Plan and the LDRs. He was also careful to give a general answer that would not affect the pending lawsuit. The Mayor then recalls, as do I, that the period of time estimated to consummate such a process would be two years.

And one asks what would we gain from such an exercise? No six story building proposals are on the horizon. However, the hysteria in the community remains. Again, the big, bad developer wolf is not at the door and is not attempting to destroy our town with an additional 10 or 20 feet in building heights. And one has to ask if such a limited allowance for buildings of that height is worth the fight to begin with. I guess the ultimate answer to that question resides with the plaintiffs.