Yesterday, the City Council considered the ordinance referred to them by petitioners to protect the Transmountain Scenic Corridor. The decision was to postpone a decision for 90 days during which time planning and discussion will take place. Even if Council had decided to support the entire petition ordinance (and the votes simply weren't there), there still would have had to have been time to determine the mechanism of preservation.
In my prepared remarks I made it clear that there was room to "compromise" in good faith:
The process for arriving at some kind of win/win solution was set forth by Matthew McElroy of the Planning and Development Department. It will include rezoning the Westside Master Plan to Smart Code, determining the essential area of the view shed of the Scenic Corridor for a conservation easement (or other instrument of permanent preservation) and taking a good look at Paseo del Norte. Slides 7 and 9 spell out the process:
The process does have the advantages of first and foremost establishing a permanent preservation for the Corridor (this is a HUGE win), moving to Smart Code for the entire Westside Master Plan which will mean more open space, and possibly finding a better solution to Paseo del Norte that everyone can live with.
To be sure, petitioners can now go out and pursue a petition to make their ordinance a referendum in a City election. So, if the process fails to meet the principles of the petition (as I mention in my remarks) or if some engage in the process in anything but good faith, then a new petition drive will be mounted immediately.
On the other hand, I saw just about every Council member wanting to find a good win/win solution. The process allows for a chance to preserve and do more. Dover Kohl has already been contacted to help with the process.
Jim: How can any further "compromise" fulfill the goals and intention of the petition? I can't see any further compromise doing that. As you know, we have compromised already by only asking for protection of less than half of what most El Pasoans want protected - 750 acres of the 1850 acres of City Public land on the mountain apron. Archuletta and the PSB are really afraid the referendum will pass, if it's decided by the voters instead of a deal he can cut with you. (see an excerpt of your post below)
ReplyDeleteRespectfully,
bill addington
Jim said:
"So, if the process fails to meet the principles of the petition (as I mention in my remarks) or if some engage in the process in anything but good faith, then a new petition drive will be mounted immediately."
Jim, You know in a 'compromise' "they" want you as the leader to compromise further. The "principles" of the petition are clear: Those who signed want protection of 750 acres of 1850 from ANY development (including roads) from the PSB managed Westside Master Plan city land. Elimination the 750 acres from development will ELIMINATE the northern part of Paseo del Norte sprawl road. You know "they" will not give up Paseo del Norte. Allowing the northern part of Paseo del Norte in any way (green road or not)violates not only the spirit but the intention of the petition.
ReplyDeleteMaking Paseo a "green" road still degrades the land petitioners want protected. We can go through this political dance and exercise, but we run a risk. "They' know the imitative has an excellent chance of passing, and "they" are worried.
You don't need to publish this Jim.
Respectfully,
for our mountains,
bill addington