[nndl] NLNPT's Role

There seems to be some confusion as to what the planning team is and,
consequently, who the chair of the planning team represents.  Neither
the team nor the chair represents you, the neighbor.  When we are asked
to vote on an issue, for example the opting in or opting out of
properties for VMU designation, we are not doing it as representatives
of the thoughts and opinions of any of our neighbors - we would not be
so presumptuous.  The planning team's role is to serve as a
watchdog for the neighborhood plan.  Any votes we take on zoning
and planning issues in our neighborhood are based on the intent and the
dictates of the plan.  The chair then represents the NLNPT in any
instances where a contact person is needed, a letter is required, etc.
- he or she is not your representative elected to speak for your
"collective preferences". The neighborhood plan, on the other hand, should reflect the
neighborhood's "collective preferences".  If it does not, then we need
to go through a plan amendment process - a process that involves not
just the planning team but the Planning Commission, the City's
planners, and, ultimately, the City Council.  The downside of this is
that it's tedious, requiring phenomenal amounts of time and effort. 
The upside is that you, the neighbor, have many bodies with which to
voice your opinion to - the planning team cannot dictatorially and
whimsically determine the fate of your property all by their little
lonesome. Oh dear, I hope I haven't discouraged anyone planning to join the NLNPT
in the hopes of partaking in the vast amounts of power it (mistakenly)
wields? :-) Kirsten Ryan Clinton wrote:

It doesn't matter how much you like Patrick, how long
you've been best friends, how experienced he is, or how brilliant and
insightful he is.  It is not okay for someone elected to represent our
collective preferences to drop f-bombs in e-mails to neighbors with
whom he disagrees.  I would implore you, Patrick, to please tone down
the acrimony in your e-mails to the group and individual neighbors. 
Everyone should tone down the rhetoric, sure.  I'm not defending anyone
else's behavior.  But not everyone is elected to represent us and speak
for us. Thanks,

Ryan On Jan 31, 2008 12:05 PM, David Papas < [at] >
wrote:

To me also, this recent back-and-forth is a
continuation of the
argument that began 6 months ago over the Howard's development.

 

It is about people fighting for a say in what
happens in their
neighborhood - wanting to be included in decisions that often
affect them…

 

And…

 

About people who have been working the issues
for 8 years or more using
a completely public and open process in cooperation with the city,
neighbors,
and local business / land owners.  These people are having trouble
figuring
out how to constructively involve new people long-term instead of
having them instead
involve themselves in a less desirable sort of short-term crisis
management
fashion, figuring out why some people would rather seem to *prefer* reacting thus instead
truly getting
involved.

 

The message is clear:

 

If you aren't in the club…

 

Come on down and get in!  Don't settle for
getting riled up
for a few weeks only to get back on the merry-go-round again every few
months.  If
you want to make a difference though, be prepared for the long haul:
progress
moves painfully slow. Most people just don't hang around long enough to
get a sense for how this work goes.  It's no wonder there are huge
misunderstandings, really.  You don't have to fight.  Seriously,
you just have to show up and get dirty.

 

Trust me, you aren't too stupid; fresh ideas
are always needed
and desired.  Still, you might want to sit in on a few meetings and see
what really goes on, get a feel for the process instead of relying on
overheated
internet hearsay from any quarter.  Keep in mind, we're just
neighbors, not professional politicians.  

 

 

Look folks, I know Patrick can be abrasive,
but I have worked with him
on planning issues for near 8 years now.  We have not always agreed,
but I
will say that no one is more technically or philosophically competent
on the
issues than he is. Period.  Making this a referendum about him, or how
many friends he has in the 'hood, or whatever is not going to help the
situation.  

 

Everyone knows that email is well known for
its capacity to blow perception
of negativity way out of proportion. Let's not try to unnecessarily
polarize
this.  We all know and respect that people get concerned and want to do
something,
and rightly so.  Let's instead try and make that "something"
productive instead of just cheesing off all the neighbors and creating
a lot of
ill will that we will all then have to work out before we can get back
to work.
The further this goes, it will be that much harder to come to any kind
of
consensus.

 

-D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

From: [at]
[mailto: [at] ] On Behalf Of jody
horton

To me this recent back-and-forth is a
continuation of the argument that
began 6 months ago over the Howard's development.

 

It is about people fighting for a say in what
happens in their
neighborhood - wanting to be included in decisions that often effect 

them more than the people making the decision
- and being told in
no uncertain term to shut the hell up.          

 

The message is clear:

If you aren't in the club, you are ignorant
and your opinions don't
matter. 

 

If you aren't in the club its your fault. 

 

So what if we didn't tell you about something
we were deciding on about
the land in your back yard?

You are too stupid to understand it anyway. 

 

--

Give Austin's Homeless Pets a Chance at Life

www.FixAustin.org