Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wasn't able to attend the meeting, but a friend told me that the development was approved this evening. I'm not sure of the vote count, but I think it's great news and look forward to seeing the project progress.
I attended the meeting with my wife and friend. The developers made a wonderful, very professional presentation for a project that should have been a slam dunk from the beginning. I am curious as to the identities of the 3 board members who voted against this. Does anybody know?
The renderings look awesome, will be a great edition to down town. Does anyone know anything more about the new building that was proposed where Daniels used to be? Looks a little flat but not a bad additiong to downtown if it's still being persued.
The members voting in the minority were Sam Loretta, Michael Shuman and Carol Pyles.
I would hesitate to label them "enemies of positive growth," despite their opposition, until I understand why they voted the way they did. In any event, on to the BZA!
The renderings look awesome, will be a great edition to down town. Does anyone know anything more about the new building that was proposed where Daniels used to be? Looks a little flat but not a bad additiong to downtown if it's still being persued.
I spoke with Daniel's owner last week, and he told me they were still working through the frustrating approval and planning process, but that the building was still in the works.
The three VFW anti development votes on the Planning Commission were cast by Sam Loretta, Michael Shuman and Carol Pyles. They might never come out with the real reasons for their negative votes, but it is likely they are trying to protect the interests of the city's old guard landlords who do not want competition.
The members voting in the minority were Sam Loretta, Michael Shuman and Carol Pyles.
I would hesitate to label them "enemies of positive growth," despite their opposition, until I understand why they voted the way they did. In any event, on to the BZA!
I would consider them "enemies of positive growth". Michael Shuman was Dave Biafora's man on the Commission. There was no doubt that he was going to oppose. At the last meeting every time he said something negative to the developers he would look at Biafora and smile.
Sam Loretta is very closed minded and did not have the decency to watch the last night's presentation fully. What he did watch he shook his head no at. His seat is up for renewal. For the love of this City, someone from the 1st Ward please step up so we can move this City into the future.
Carol Pyles.....does not have a clue about development. If Biafora wasn't in her pocket, I would be surprised.
And for Loretta and Shuman to vote in opposition of the subdivision was asinine. You can NOT turn down a subdivision if it meets the regulations. It is against the law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
