3 thoughts on “The Loneliest Planning Commissioners”

  1. Peter Hedlund, representing the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood Association, said it was difficult to review the documents on the city’s Web site and that the notice of the meeting was late. When the meeting began, it still had not been advertised on the city’s own site.

    I know Peter. If he says it’s difficult to review the documents on the city’s web site, then it must be a REAL pain in the ass. And it’s hard to get good participation with late notification and no advertisement.

    It’s kind of like throwing a party, not telling anybody about it until one hour beforehand and then wondering why nobody showed up.

  2. Here’s the hiss of truth. Anyone in government knows that the public can only get involved when the public is told how and where to do so.

    The failure to do that means planners wanted to pay lip service to public involvement, not actually have it.

    By having some minimal notice unlikely to be found, as they surely did, that gave them plausible deniability that they were shutting out the public, which of course they were.

    When every month’s water bill is accompanied by a city newsletter, and we have three newspapers of more or less general circulation in the city, the failure to use those avenues is more than evidence – it is proof the planners didn’t want the public showing up.

    All the rest is the obligatory cover-up.

  3. I agree with Jiles 100 percent.

    My first thought after reading the article was “why hadn’t I heard about this?” Not to say I would’ve been able to go, but I would’ve like to have know about it.

    If they wanted to publicize this they certainly could have done so and easily.

Comments are closed.