I must note that I had the TV off and no other electronics operating, but still received feedback on every word I said during public comment. It was disconcerting and disturbing. As for comments, please do not sacrifice adequate time for project review to accommodate developers. You might spend an extra month or two, but the project, once built, will grace (or clash with) our streets and City for perhaps 100s of years. Another caller spoke to the need for a pre-application process for projects in the HPO. I support, so will not belabor, the caller’s point.
Wouldn’t community support vs. acrimony and multiple workshops be the best option? Engaging the public is necessary needed to maintain the character of our neighborhoods, specific to Chapter 6 and HP12 of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff’s proposal ‘optimizes’ staff’s time by eliminating individual meetings with each NAC, the only current opportunity for resident comment in the early, but still too late stages of proposed development. I note, here, that the major virtue of the individual NAC meetings is that real dialogue occurs in these forums and is lost in All-NAC planning meetings.
Citizens do not want to just be told what will be built. They want to have input in how their neighborhood and city will develop not a cutting back on the limited interaction time already in place with the single meeting of a staff member, developer, and a NAC membership.
Finally, remember that Section IV of Neighborhood Advisory Council Guidelines/Responsibilities (approved February 16, 2012) states: “Generally. The NACs will serve in an advisory and partnership capacity. We expect to be partners, not afterthoughts.
Particpation with the community is a fundamental part of the job for city staff, especially for planning staff and others involved in land use and development projects. Consolidating individual meetings with NACs into a single meeting is purely intended to be a convenience measure for developers and applicants. Any pressure this puts on them is not a concern of the City or its residents. If City staff requires additional resources to continue to engage the public in individual NAC meetings, then it is incumbent upon out elected officials to ensure staff has additonal resources to accomplish that mission.
This measure is another step by city staff to disempower NACs and citizen acitivism more broadly. It will not provide any advantage to residents, but will instead only make things more diffcult for residents and and easier for developers.
This change to the Code quiets the community. The City of Frederick is going to continue to grow. But if the residents are cut out of the process, we risk becoming a disconnected and unengaged community. Communications, including consensus-building, is the foundation of a strong, resilient, and happy community. And this code change by the City is only going to make their poor communications even worse. The only benefit I can see from this new process is that it will be less demanding on City staff and developers' time and resources.
A few years ago, a developer shared a project at a NAC meeting. I think it was NAC 3. Anyway, some residents were concerned about how the new build would impact a historic cemetery in their neighborhood. During the meeting, the developer took time to listen to concerns regarding the design and eventually came back to the community with a solution to address their concerns. I remember thinking—I wish all developers respected the current residents as this one does.
We will lose this type of dialogue in the new format the City is proposing. There won't be time to "listen" and there definitely won't be discussions. Dialogue is important, because it's a conversation to resolve a problem, and without it people disengage, and we lose our sense of community.
I must note that I had the TV off and no other electronics operating, but still received feedback on every word I said during public comment. It was disconcerting and disturbing. As for comments, please do not sacrifice adequate time for project review to accommodate developers. You might spend an extra month or two, but the project, once built, will grace (or clash with) our streets and City for perhaps 100s of years. Another caller spoke to the need for a pre-application process for projects in the HPO. I support, so will not belabor, the caller’s point.
Wouldn’t community support vs. acrimony and multiple workshops be the best option? Engaging the public is necessary needed to maintain the character of our neighborhoods, specific to Chapter 6 and HP12 of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff’s proposal ‘optimizes’ staff’s time by eliminating individual meetings with each NAC, the only current opportunity for resident comment in the early, but still too late stages of proposed development. I note, here, that the major virtue of the individual NAC meetings is that real dialogue occurs in these forums and is lost in All-NAC planning meetings.
Citizens do not want to just be told what will be built. They want to have input in how their neighborhood and city will develop not a cutting back on the limited interaction time already in place with the single meeting of a staff member, developer, and a NAC membership.
Finally, remember that Section IV of Neighborhood Advisory Council Guidelines/Responsibilities (approved February 16, 2012) states: “Generally. The NACs will serve in an advisory and partnership capacity. We expect to be partners, not afterthoughts.
Particpation with the community is a fundamental part of the job for city staff, especially for planning staff and others involved in land use and development projects. Consolidating individual meetings with NACs into a single meeting is purely intended to be a convenience measure for developers and applicants. Any pressure this puts on them is not a concern of the City or its residents. If City staff requires additional resources to continue to engage the public in individual NAC meetings, then it is incumbent upon out elected officials to ensure staff has additonal resources to accomplish that mission.
This measure is another step by city staff to disempower NACs and citizen acitivism more broadly. It will not provide any advantage to residents, but will instead only make things more diffcult for residents and and easier for developers.
This change to the Code quiets the community. The City of Frederick is going to continue to grow. But if the residents are cut out of the process, we risk becoming a disconnected and unengaged community. Communications, including consensus-building, is the foundation of a strong, resilient, and happy community. And this code change by the City is only going to make their poor communications even worse. The only benefit I can see from this new process is that it will be less demanding on City staff and developers' time and resources.
A few years ago, a developer shared a project at a NAC meeting. I think it was NAC 3. Anyway, some residents were concerned about how the new build would impact a historic cemetery in their neighborhood. During the meeting, the developer took time to listen to concerns regarding the design and eventually came back to the community with a solution to address their concerns. I remember thinking—I wish all developers respected the current residents as this one does.
We will lose this type of dialogue in the new format the City is proposing. There won't be time to "listen" and there definitely won't be discussions. Dialogue is important, because it's a conversation to resolve a problem, and without it people disengage, and we lose our sense of community.