[MissoulaGov] PAZ yesterday

[Jim Parker]

To Bob and listserve:

Thanks you for your weekly updates.

I was at the PAZ meeting yesterday (late, but I made it). I, too, was 
disappointed that a compromise excluded even the possibility of ADUs 
from single family zones (no 'right' not even a protest-able overlay), 
while getting a 'right' to build them where one could already build a 
full additional structure already.

To me this is not a compromise, but a give-away---and for what? I truly 
cannot answer that question without talking to those who voted for this 
solution. Since one of my council members voted for this I surely will 
ask him why.

I am hopeful that after continued consideration there will be an effort 
to at least bring back the overlay for additional zones in the city that 
have single family residences. If, we as a city, are going to support 
ADUs at all, as the PAZ committee did, why then exclude them from many 
of the precise areas we need them the most: a] to support families 
helping each other as family members age and wish to either save 
thousands of dollars they do not have in end of life care, and/or just 
be closer to family; b] to help homeowners afford their mortgages and 
stay in their homes (by providing much needed additional incomes); c] to 
help ease (not solve) the affordable housing dilemma we continue to bear 
witness to in Missoula; d] to provide essential affordable rentals for 
UM students and others not yet ready to become homeowners. And these are 
just a few reasons.

Again, if it was just I hate ADUs or I love ADUs it would seem that your 
'political' goals would be all or nothing. To allow them in some places 
and not others seems just political and not at all 'policy' driven or 
responsive to the clear needs facing our citizenry---not that I'm 
bashful about politics or naive to think it doesn't play into politic 
decisions, BUT---this seems in no way to serve our community concerns 
but to make things easier for council members over the long run, to just 
get along...a worthy goal but not when people's lives and futures are at 
stake.

As the old saying goes...and I paraphrase: 'If the politicians are all 
happy, someone's not doing there job.'

I will end by saying I have the deepest respect for our elected 
officials and in no way suggest skullduggery. Your job is most difficult 
and I admire it when you all rise to the occasion to make very difficult 
decisions. I hope you will continue to consider this one as you weave 
these votes back to the floor, and perhaps, consider them again.

Jim Parker, Owner
WestRidge Creative
PO Box 8492
Missoula, MT  59807
Phone: 406.327.1596
Fax:     406.542.0513
www.westridgecreative.com <http://www.westridgecreative.com>



Marilyn Marler wrote:

> Hi Bob,

> Your take on the PAZ meeting and ADU discussion is more cynical than 

> mine. I thought it was a pretty good display of working together as a 

> council to get through that very divisive issue.  I didn't get the 

> perfect outcome that I wanted, but that is the nature of this kind of 

> work.

>  

> I hope it set a more positive tone for the rest of the discussion on 

> the re-write. Thanks for your weekly summaries, you provide a great 

> service.  Marilyn

>

>     ----- Original Message -----

>     *From:* Bob Jaffe <mailto:BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>

>     *To:* missoulagov at cmslists.com <mailto:missoulagov at cmslists.com>

>     *Sent:* Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:41 PM

>     *Subject:* [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 6-24-09

>

>     Greetings,

>

>     This morning we set the public hearing for the new panhandling

>     ordinances in Public Safety.

>

>     The panhandling working group has been organizing a number of

>     efforts like the "Real Change" program and the work on this

>     ordinance. This link takes you to the referral and ordinances:

>

>     http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1654

>

>      

>

>     The whole thing pushes both my liberal and libertarian buttons.  I

>     don't really like making laws to make things harder for the

>     destitute. And I'm not sure we really need a law that tells folks

>     they can't "force themselves upon the company of others." But

>     there is no doubt aggressive panhandling is a major bummer for

>     those trying to attract visitors and shoppers to downtown.  The

>     police say they need a more specific ordinance to respond to the

>     requests of merchants and citizens.  Ellie Hill from the Poverello

>     assured us that the serial inebriates have no interest in

>     interaction with the police and will quickly learn and follow the

>     new rules. A similar set of rules was passed in Billings. Even

>     though they have had very few citations they had a high level of

>     compliance and complaints dropped significantly after passing the

>     ordinance. We set a public hearing for July 27^th .

>

>      

>

>     In PAZ we continued our discussion on the zoning ordinance. We had

>     the long public hearing Monday night. Most folks probably read the

>     Missoulian coverage. There were about 100 people there. Maybe 50

>     spoke. The ADU was still the focal point of much of the comment. I

>     counted off about 30 comments in favor or the project and ADU's.

>     About fifteen against, and five or so who spoke only to specific

>     technical issues.  On Stacy's request, a table was set up at the

>     entrance with forms for people to submit written comment. This

>     worked pretty well. There were an additional 18 comment forms

>     submitted. Most with well articulated points of view. They were

>     pretty evenly split on support and opposition on the ADU issue.

>

>      

>

>     The following morning we returned to committee and returned to the

>     motion on the floor from last week to send the whole thing back to

>     the planning board.  After a pretty lengthy discussion the motion

>     failed and I attempted to move the discussion on to the topic of

>     the ADU overlay.  There was much wrangling about process. Dick

>     made a motion to do something like just endlessly talk about

>     issues but not make any amendments until some later date.  We

>     "frittered" away about two hours on that nonsense. It wasn't until

>     the fourth call for the question that I finally got a majority to

>     be done talking about it and we were able to dispose of the idea. 

>     So we were back to the main motion to adopt title 20 with some

>     bizarre caveat that if the question is called on the main motion

>     we have to wait seven days to actually vote on it.  I may yet call

>     that divergence from procedure out of order.  There appeared to be

>     some concern that we would force the thing back to the floor

>     before everyone had an opportunity to have their issues heard.

>     Possibly as we get further into this and all the suspicion and

>     fear subsides we will be able to just dispense with the weird

>     seven day waiting amendment.  The frustration level was extremely

>     high at that point in the meeting so we took a recess. After a few

>     minutes we reconvened and spent the remaining 45 minutes just

>     asking questions of our consultant. That part was pretty

>     productive so I chose to provide another hour or so at today's

>     meeting for more Q&A

>

>      

>

>     So we started off this morning's PAZ with more random Q&A for the

>     consultant. Then we got into the ADU discussion. Stacy moved to

>     allow them by right in the multi-family zones. Then Jon made a

>     substitute motion to exclude the option for the ADU overlay from

>     the single family zones. After much discussion and minor

>     amendments both motions passed. Jon's with Marilyn, Dave, Renee,

>     Dick, Lynn, Jon, and John.  Stacy's with Marilyn, Ed, Jon, Myself,

>     Stacy, Pam, Jason, and Dave. Hendrickson Abstained. It had all the

>     appearance of a glorious moment of compromise amongst the council

>     but in reality it was the usual liberal giveaway. Best I can tell

>     the ADU doesn't really offer much to the multi-family zones and

>     now they can't even be had in the single family zones with an

>     overlay rezoning process. But the goal here is to pass title 20.

>     Hopefully this gets us closer to that goal. My intention is to

>     refrain from revisiting this issue in committee. There may be some

>     further amendments on the floor once the details really get worked

>     out.

>

>      

>

>     After the lunch break we had A&F. The CDBG-R grant that we were

>     going to use for replacing park equipment was denied. HUD decided

>     that parks were not considered infrastructure for low income

>     families. We disagree. The mayor argued the case all the way to

>     Washington but it didn't get anywhere. HUD announced the final

>     decision that recovery money could not be used for parks on the

>     same day the white house announced that they were getting a

>     playground. So now we are going to use the money for repairs to

>     the pedestrian railroad overpass. There are some structural issues

>     to address and we want to get rid of the pigeon roosts and the

>     homeless hiding places.

>

>      

>

>     In Public Works we approved various sewer related contracts and

>     the CMAQ grant contract for the bike/ped program.  A few of us

>     have concerns about how some of this money is being applied but

>     this wasn't really the time to take it up.  We will need to try to

>     remember to have this conversation much earlier in the process

>     next year.  The main concern is whether the best use of this money

>     is on various promotional and educational efforts as opposed to

>     hard infrastructure.  Could the $11,000 we spend on the bike

>     ambassadors do more for cyclists if it was spent on creating more

>     bike lanes? Are the little signs telling us that we are on a safe

>     route to school more important than actually doing something to

>     make the route safer? It's a discussion worth having at another time.

>

>      

>

>     In BCOW we pretty much finished up the budget. There are still a

>     few loose ends so we held off on approving the preliminary budget.

>     It always gets amended later when final numbers are in but there

>     are still some negotiations happening that could change things. 

>     If the unions are unwilling to work with us on the health care

>     contribution reductions we may need to come back for more cuts.

>

>      

>

>     Thanks for your interest,

>

>      

>

>              

>

>      

>

>     Bob Jaffe

>

>     Missoula City Council, Ward 3

>

>     1225 South 2nd West

>

>     Missoula, MT 59801

>

>     (406) 728-1052

>

>      

>

>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>     _______________________________________________

>     -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

>

>     Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of

>     Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public

>     record.

>     Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org

>     List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> _______________________________________________

> -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

>

> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 

> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 

> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090625/e0b133c6/attachment.htm>