6/15 meeting post mortem

Right on I-75, but aim at “walk to” and bike to” businesses!?!?!? Parking hidden from sight --AND from travelers?!?!?!  What are they thinking???

They pulled the “Ol’ switcheroo” (as usual) to spring things on everyone at the last minute and keep the information OUT of the hands of anyone in the public that night be able to expose any shenanigans.

It’s amazing how this “expedited” process will end up in court if anyone does not like Kohler’s decisions. Yes sir-ee, Bob!!! Going to court is always a really quick way to do things. Why Judge Wapner and Judge Judy (pun intended) are usually able to solve two or three cases in just a half an hour--including commercials!!!

And of course, just as Robinette says, there are still some “problem areas”, but “don’t worry!” They’re gonna fix those right before you approve this thing  after the SECOND READING by TITLE ONLY!!!

Don’t worry about language!! We know what “the intent” is.

Hmm…Kohler defers to Robinette--because he can explain better--then Robinette defers to Landen--because he can explain better--then Landen defers to …doh, doh, doh …

Perhaps the best testimony to this boondoggle was that spoken by Marvin (I couldn’t catch his last name). Marvin came down to speak IN FAVOR of the changes. However, when you listen to Marvin, he could not say a single word IN FAVOR of any of this! Marvin sounded more like he was pleading his case AGAINST both what happened to his property and what these changes portend for our city. Too bad, Marvin. As Mr. Landen said, if you don’t like the railroad job we’re pulling on you, TAKE US TO COURT! After all, THAT’s the “expedited process” Middletown style!  God bless poor Marvin!!!

By the way, did anyone else notice how often Kohler used the term “your City Planning Commission”??? That’s an old salesmen’s trick, as in “your new perpetual motion machine,” or “your (Democratic/Republican) congress”. They use it to either send a subliminal message that you already own the useless piece of junk that they are trying to sell you, our to try to set up either a scapegoat or a hero for some action.

Lastly, I would like to thank Mr. Kohler for his little lecture on writing zoning regulations and how they must be clear and use IMPERATIVE terms such as “Shall” and "must". However, would anyone care to hazard I guess where I found the following, copied and pasted EXACTLY from a public documents of exactly the sort he was describing?

Pedestrian amenities should be placed in front of a building near the public sidewalk or near building entrances.

If the site is a part of a larger parcel, the plan should indicate the boundaries of total land holding.

Design geometrics should be included.

The maximum front yard depth may be increased if necessitated by natural or man-made development constraints such as utility easements, steep slopes, or stream corridors.

On-street parking is permitted on local streets and may count toward the required number of parking spaces.

For combinations of land uses other than those mentioned in Chapter 1270.02(k), the Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in the required number of parking spaces when multiple uses with offsetting peak hours of parking demand provide shared parking lots, as follows:

The use of parking spaces may be restricted to the owner’s customers and tenants only.

The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for cross access, in whole or in part, administratively, where cross access is deemed impractical due to vehicular safety issues or environmental constraints such as severe topography.

If foundation planting requirements overlap with buffer requirements in Section (3), the buffer requirements may satisfy this standard.

Screening and tree planting requirements along interstates may be waived if the Planning Commission determines that existing or planned landscaping or walls within the interstate right-of-way is sufficient to meet the requirement.

Landscaped areas used for screening may not be included in the interior landscaping calculation.

This requirement may be met through any of the preceding landscaping requirements, as well as tree preservation.

Furthermore, the sign may occupy no more than 25% of the front-facing portion of the awning.

Lighting may be mounted to a building façade only at entrances, loading/service locations, or for the purpose of accent lighting. Building-mounted lighting may not be used to light parking areas or walkways.

Ground-Mounted Lighting. Lighting fixtures may be no more than 25 feet above grade.

No commercial vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight rated in excess of 10,000 pounds, or more than seven feet in height, and not owned by or associated with an existing business on a subject property, may be parked on any lot, except for commercial vehicles making service calls or deliveries, or parked as a customer of a hotel or motel where truck parking is specifically approved as part of the parking lot design.

May not conceal architectural features and must complement colors/materials of building [WOW!!! Since someone got one out of two instances correct in the same (almost) sentence here, I think I’ll stop, but I‘ll wager that I can find 10 to 15 more in this single document!!! Hint: It is NOT the codified ordinances nor the administrative code.]

You MIGHT not do as I say…

If you’re connected I MAY look the other way…

but you SHALL NOT do as I do…

1253.05 REQUIRED CONDITIONS

(e) Outdoor Dining.

If we don't, I guess we just have to refer to that phantom 154.05(g).    

Now some of you may think that I'm being too picky, or too hard on our poor, little, overworked, underpaid public servants--but I am not! Here's the thing:

I actually DO know “the intent”--or at least I know what "the intent" SHOULD BE, and I’ll explain it to you in laymen’s terms. But first, I’ll explain WHY I know!!!

You see, in the private sector, we have to do things quickly and efficiently…and we also have to do things accurately, and we have to keep things moving. After all, in the private sector it’s all about the bottom line, and for the employees, it’s also about performance, and profits for both your employers AND your employer’s clients.

So, here is “the intent” when “contract documents“ are involved: You make things CLEAR. You make them as concise and simple as possible while making them as complete and detailed as necessary. You mandate everything that you need to mandate, but no more. You detail all that you must detail, and no less. The “goal” is to allow a quick, easy submittal (whether that submittal is to be a bid to buy; or an offer to sell. Whether it is a contract to construct, or a request for subcontractors on a certain portion of a project. Whether you are preparing something--virtually ANYTHING--to submit for approval; or you are preparing spec’s. or requests for proposal, or--yes--even zoning documents, the goal is the same.

The goal is either to submit, or to have submitted to you, something that so obviously meets all stated requirements that virtually NO questions are raised. The goal is to either submit, or to receive, something that is so obviously in conformance that it becomes a veritable “checklist” that even a single person can review quickly and say: “Yes, this meets ALL requirements! No ifs, buts, maybes, excepts, even a “dunno”. Especially no “mays”, “mights” “shoulds” etc.

That is “the intent” or at least it should be. Both a zoning Code AND a Zoning review process that is so clear-cut, that virtually anyone who knows “the lingo” on the developer’s team can look at their proposal and KNOW whether or not it meets all of the requirements, and that anyone in the Zoning department can “check off” and quickly verify whether or not it meets all requirements. If it does--NO PROBLEM!! Tell the Board that it does, and they should approve it post haste…no muss, no fuss! (And NO City Council!) If it doesn’t, BACK it GOES…withOUT bothering ANY board or commission, and the developer either changes it (in the case of an error), and BINGO!! It gets approved!!! If not, the developer goes to the Board ON THAT ONE (or MORE) ISSUE ONLY, to get THAT “variance” approved, and BINGO!! The whole project flies, because everyone knows that everything else already meets the code.

Now, if a developer wants a variance on half the darn code, or wants to put an experimental nuclear rocket launcher between a church and a nursery school, guess what? He should EXPECT a long, drawn out, delay-filled “variance process."

Anyway, that’s what’s wrong here. Since a few individuals want to control every little aspect of everything, and possibly even steer things certain ways for profit, “the intent” as described above just will not work!!! They have to have a lot of discretion to be able to road-block the “wrong people” for NO good reason, and allow the “right people” for any old reason, regardless of whether a variance is requested or not.

And that is why our “most desirable” location on the Cin-Day corridor has NOT yet developed, and that is why those with vision (Like Mr. “Marvin”) who tried to play the game by the rules and stood to win big, is now standing there empty-handed!

That is also why we MUST CLEAN HOUSE at City Hall !!  It's not their business who wins or loses.  Things are not supposed to suit their "tastes" or preferences.  IF they are so smart, then GET OUT OF City Hall, raise YOUR OWN capital, and risk YOUR money on YOUR vision (and I actually hope that you make a fortune!), but do it on YOUR OWN TIME, with YOUR OWN MONEY!  We've seen you and your friends' wonderful business acumen at work in the former downtown.  Let those with with actual records of success try it at our new downtown!