Please                   to The People's Voice    LLC, PAC

Currently, the Donate Button is for the PAC - Ethics Ballot only

Membership access and/or benefits are not affected by donation or lack of donation to PAC

Website Information:

Contact Us:  ethicsballot@gmail.com

© 2019 by Authority of The People's Voice     LLC PAC, Lisa Markovitz, Treasurer

OUR BLOG: THE PEOPLE'S VOICE ... HEARD

Scales seem broken - DRRA UPDATE

April 25, 2019

Updating on the blog about CR49 which has a Developers Rights and Responsibilities Agreement in it for the sale of the property where the county wishes to build High School 13 on Mission Road. An amendment was filed two hours prior to the public hearing on this Resolution this past Monday. That amendment addressed some of the issues regarding concerns about how long an adjacent quarry will operate legally. The second part addressed what zoning regulations would be frozen for 25 years in this agreement.

 

Upon first glance the amendment seemed to say that the parcels would have to abide by whatever laws are current, down the road, regarding future development and not freeze today's laws. Unfortunately, a closer look, at the last sentences, I believe, negated that entire notion. It says a list of several zoning regulations, including APFO (adequate public facilities ordinance that directs the pacing of development), and some environmental regs would apply to the parcels at the time of development, but then it says the parcels will not have to abide by any changes in the laws if a change "specifically affects or targets" the parcels. Were they trying to make sure no laws would get passed down the road "targeting" this exact future possible development to restrict it? It doesn't say "solely affects or targets". It says "specifically affects". How can something affect you that doesn't specifically affect you? This is a giant loophole.

 

The laws are not frozen unless they affect you. hmmm. Maybe the land use attorney representing the sellers should not be the one drafting our legislative amendments. I assume this happened because Mr. Sang Oh testified before the Council "we proposed the amendment". In any case, that line needs to be rewritten because it can be way too easily argued down the road, that no changes that affect them will apply. Elsewhere in the Bill it says the petitioner has the right in its sole discretion to allow changes to occur or not. That has to be edited out also.

 

Protecting their business rights in the sale of land for a school is one thing. Freezing zoning regulations to safeguard for decades any possible changes the county sees as needed regarding development in the area, and grandfathering themselves with a time machine is totally unnecessary and an inappropriate requirement to tie to the sale agreement.

 

If they were actually threatened with "condemnation" another term for emminent domain, you'd think the agreement would not be written as if they hold all the cards. We have to adjust this scale, otherwise, how about the County pays in 2044 dollars?

 

Original blog on DRRA 

 

Please reload

Subscribe to our Blog

RSS Feed
Featured Posts

November 12, 2019

January 18, 2019

Please reload

Recent Posts

November 12, 2019

January 18, 2019

Please reload

Archive
Please reload