14 Comments

  1. By John Floyd
    May 15, 2013 at 10:23 pm | permalink

    Chuck Warpahoski’s monument to himself – and he’s only been in office since November. Wonder what we’ll get when he’s been there a full year?

  2. By Libby Hunter
    May 16, 2013 at 9:36 am | permalink

    Along those lines, Chuck Warpehoski also voted in favor of the AATA appointment of Eric Mahler later in Monday’s meeting. So did Sally Petersen. Unfortunately, we see a trend with these newbies on council as John F. observes regarding Chuck.

    I wasn’t surprized at yes votes from Breier, Taylor, Higgins, and Teall. I guess we’re lucky to have at least 4 independent thinkers on council – Anglin, Kunselman, Kailasapathy, and Lumm voted no. It’s the votes, not the rhetoric, that counts when assessing who’s who.

  3. By Jack Eaton
    May 16, 2013 at 11:28 am | permalink

    Re (2) According to a posting on a2politico.com, Council Member Petersen did not support the appointment of Mahler to the AATA Board.

    [link]

    “Kailasapthy, Petersen, Ward 2 Council member Jane Lumm, Kunselman and Anglin pressed Hieftje to withdraw Mahler’s name and appoint, instead, the other applicant whose materials they had been given.”

    Perhaps her final vote was different than her discussion of the issue. Her call for a review of the whole appointment process is refreshing.

    I patiently await the comprehensive coverage of the meeting that the Chronicle will provide.

  4. By Dave Askins
    May 16, 2013 at 1:04 pm | permalink

    Re: [3]

    During deliberations Petersen framed the question as voting on whether Mahler was qualified, not as a choice between Mahler and anyone else. I had Petersen as a yes vote on Mahler’s appointment. On the phone just now I confirmed that the city clerk also had Petersen as a yes. The CTN recording I watched online just now doesn’t have anything audible (to me). So I guess it pays to be there. It doesn’t pay very much. But still. [I also have a query out to Petersen, just to confirm.]

  5. By Dave Askins
    May 16, 2013 at 4:29 pm | permalink

    Follow up to [4]

    And Petersen has confirmed her yes vote.

  6. By TJ
    May 18, 2013 at 10:51 pm | permalink

    re [1] and [2]: Anglin already has his monument: City Place.

  7. By Vivienne Armentrout
    May 19, 2013 at 8:03 am | permalink

    I hope that (6) is not implying that Mike Anglin is somehow responsible for City Place. He attempted to get a historic district designation very early in his term of service for the 5th Avenue area and Carsten Hohnke voted it down. Mike was always in support of the neighborhood on that issue.

  8. By Dave Askins
    May 19, 2013 at 9:07 am | permalink

    Re: [7] ” … Carsten Hohnke voted it down”

    There were a lot of votes in the history of City Place and several different votes taken the night of the historic district, with reconsiderations and the like. I’m not sure which vote you mean, Vivienne, but Hohnke voted for the establishment of the historic district:

    Outcome: The vote on the historic district was 4-6. Voting against it were: Stephen Rapundalo, Margie Teall, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Marcia Higgins, and Christopher Taylor. Voting for it were: Sabra Briere, Carsten Hohnke, John Hieftje, and Stephen Kunselman. [link]

  9. By Libby Hunter
    May 19, 2013 at 9:20 am | permalink

    TJ – I’d be very interested in an explanation of your comment.
    Have you actually checked Anglin’s voting record on this?

  10. By Vivienne Armentrout
    May 19, 2013 at 9:51 am | permalink

    Re (8) I’m talking about a vote that was taken on December 15, 2008. I think you are talking about one a couple of years later. There were only 3 votes in favor of the 2008 measure, Anglin, Briere and Teall. Hohnke voted with most of the Council party against the historic district study committee. His early support of the neighborhood might have made a difference. A committee was then established later, which he supported, considerably after the project had been under discussion.

    Mike was always unequivocally supportive of the neighborhood on this issue.

  11. By Vivienne Armentrout
    May 19, 2013 at 9:54 am | permalink

    I should clarify that Anglin was absent (out of town) when the vote that you cite was taken. Note that it would have lost even had he been present.

  12. By TJ
    May 20, 2013 at 10:24 am | permalink

    My point is that by dragging their feet and making it so *@#$ hard for the original project to proceed, we ended up with the boring (some would say ugly) City Place.

  13. By Vivienne Armentrout
    May 20, 2013 at 10:51 am | permalink

    The historic district would have been the most elegant and satisfactory solution to that. Too bad the Council Party opposed it. Now the Planning Commission appears to have diluted the R4C citizen committee recommendations against lot consolidation, setting the way in place for another travesty like that.

  14. By Libby Hunter
    May 20, 2013 at 12:18 pm | permalink

    TJ – My question to you in #9 was referring to your statement about an individual council member in
    #6. Would still be very interested in understanding what you were talking about, and if you have checked his voting record. Thanks in advance.