As many folks already know, last night's City Council meeting was a long one. There was a lot of debate over two issues that have been at the forefront of City Council for a few years: the future of Countryside Golf Course and whether and where the city should build an amphitheater.
If you watched or read the news, you may also know that at times things became a little heated. Suffice to say that I stand by my words and look forward to a more inclusive, respectful process in the future. I hope that we can work to make certain that every member of Council is aware of what is happening before it is set in stone.
Out of respect for my fellow members of Council, I don't want to focus on this debate and will leave it at that.
What I do want to focus on is the future of Countryside. I voted "yes" for the motion offered by Vice-mayor Lea -- a vote which may seem contradictory to my words last evening.
The motion is what the city attorney called "a statement of policy." It is a non-binding vote that essentially formalizes a process that was already beginning -- to delve into the numbers, issue an RFP for a management company to run the course and determine capital needs. This is the information that I believe is necessary to have to make an informed decision about the future of Countryside.
I fully recognize how difficult the last several years have probably been for residents who live on or near the golf course. There has been a level of uncertainty that would naturally concern someone who has made a large investment in a home and who wonders what the future holds for their neighborhood.
I truly believe that we are finally nearing a decision on Countryside, and I believe that the non-binding motion will speed the process along, allow us to gather the necessary and relevant information, and once and for all make a decision that provides certainty to the residents at Countryside but also is the fiscally responsible course of action for the entire City of Roanoke and its taxpayers.
Oh, and I'll leave the amphitheater for another time...
Game ANDROID UPDATE Yang Seru
3 months ago
5 comments:
I'm very disappointed by the disrespect of your fellow council members yesterday. This city will not become more progressive if the leaders can, at a minimum, respect each other as people.
It is OK to disagree, that is what makes our system work. It is not OK to talk down to someone and make it personal.
Yesterday was the first time I had ever attended a council session, and I was absolutely amazed by the childish behavior on display. We were all sorely mistaken if we thought that the era of factionalism and back rooms deals was behind us.
If the process was already beginning why was a "Non-Binding" vote needed?
Thanks for your comments. I agree with you 100% JJ. Let's be open and honest and when we disagree.... we disagree. It's not personal.
aboit, the vote wasn't "needed." Any member of Council can offer a motion and it is voted on. In this instance, the motion and vote were more simply moving the process forward, which I think is a good thing. In short, the goal of the motion initially was told to be non-binding by the city attorney.
I look forward to some binding votes!
Post a Comment