Wish I could thank the council for innovation.

The big takeaway for me is that all of the ancillary laws and guidelines (central area plan, design guidelines, character overlay, “Must meet all applicable federal, state and local requirements”, etc.) are just a joke, and have no meaning whatsoever. All the energy expended by community members, all the assurances by council that these other elements would work to soften the impacts of the zoning changes, all amount to nothing.

The D1 zoning was created by exactly the same people who created the character overlay legislation, the central area plan, and the design guideline process – who are in turn the very people who last night claimed that none of this stuff amounted to a hill of beans. Can anyone provide a coherent rationale for why these people created all this irrelevant ancillary legislation?

This reminds me of council’s shoulder shrugging at giving property tax abatements when they didn’t have a policy in place. Now they have a policy (an insufficient one) but they still haven’t applied it that I’m aware of.

8:07 p. m. Mike Anglin channels Bob Dylan: “There’s too much confusion.” Too much? It’s perfect. Will we learn how so?

The building might get a new nickname (if it still gets built).

Mahler’s appointment was questioned by dissenters for a couple of reasons. First, he’ll be finishing his second three-year term on the planning commission in June, having been appointed in 2007 (but will not continue on that body). The idea was that it’s important to expand the total pool of people who are appointed to boards and commissions, instead of moving the same people from board to board. The other point was there was an alternate candidate who was thought to be preferable to Mahler – because she would be able to represent the diability community better. The name of the candidate wasn’t mentioned at the meeting, but when I followed up to ask was told it was LuAnne Bullington.