Kristian from thedailypage.com blogged about the Mayor’s IZ workgroup that met today. It’s a great summary of the meeting. In fact, I don’t think I’ll bother to write my own summary, but instead, refer people to his posting.
The meeting went relatively well for a meeting about process . . . tho I am concerned about this workgroup for several reasons.
First, let me say I’m willing to play along, play fair and I’m excited to finally get the other alders to talk about Inclusionary Zoning and get their proposals for changes on the table – cuz up to this point, they haven’t added anything constructive to the discussion. Vague criticisms, strong talking points, secret counterproposals, questions, bad data, press releases, but not a single constructive suggestion except from Jed. I’m at the table willing to listen, willing to agree to a fair compromise and willing to keep an open mind about things.
That said . . . does the committee appear “balanced” to you? I mean, of the 6 alders, I’m the only one who was a sponsor of the original ordinance and sponsored the changes suggested by staff. Doesn’t feel very “balanced” to me – seems to me I’m set up to be on the losing end of everything.
I am also concerned because I don’t think that that the purpose of the committee is very clear. Is the purpose to allow the lobbyists to get a better venue to talk? I’ve already stated pretty clearly that I don’t think we should give them a “special” table. I think they should participate in the process as it exists, and if that process isn’t good enough for the paid lobbyists, we should change the process, so everyone has a better chance to provide their input, not just the paid lobbyists. However, I also don’t think they should be excluded from the discussion and recommended that they, and anyone else who shows up, continue to participate in an informal way and they agreed to that process. My concern is that we need the actual real estate industry folks show up, the folks who are working with the ordinance, not just their paid lobbyists.
My other concern about the purpose of the committee is that it seems some alders think they are at the table to create a compromise that the Plan Commission and other alders will de facto be forced to accept. This last issue has me most concerned. I feel very uncomfortable cutting that many people out of the process and declaring ourselves to be the arbiter of this issue. I really hope that isn’t what the other alders are expecting, cuz I don’t think I can agree to that.
Finally, although I have these concerns, I am looking forward to some open, honest discussion about the equity model, marketing and several of the other issues. I really hope that is what this workgroup ends up doing and it doesn’t wind up being just a bunch of political games . . . but I guess, only time will tell.
