This brings me to my final two points.
First, Sloan said on Dec. 3 that the development code amendments proposed by the council members would be considered adopted if they had been discussed at the Nov. 19 meeting.
The medical marijuana dispensary/cooperative issue fell into that category.
Sloan said amendments that weren’t discussed on Nov. 19 would be considered only as introduced if passed by the council on Dec. 3. The amendments would have to go through a second vote – adoption— at a later date, Sloan said. The recycling center and food truck amendments fell into that category.
I have looked at the Dec. 10 City Council agenda. I didn’t see the recycling center and food truck amendments coming up for a second council vote. But my eyes are bad.
Second, my treaty metaphor.
Yes, this new development code is chock full of seemingly boring development regulations for things like cul-de-sacs. But the council’s actions of Dec. 3 made me see how some of these dry details, once set in legal stone, might be leveraged into immense business advantage for one group while putting another group at considerable disadvantage.
All of the groups knew that as the new development code was drafted. The heated debate could have been endless. The City Council and the Administration had to somehow get a critical mass of powerful entities, each with a degree of sovereignty, to sign the peace treaty that is the new development code.
The potential signatories left out in the cold?
Tough luck.
