Draft report - Vision Committee 1995

Browse Search

discussion about fair value to landowners; clearly a concern to people. He suggested we. ought to get this on table and look at it. Bob Strayhorn expanded on that by giving an example of how a park may be desirable, but how is the landowner going to get value out of his land. Are we going to down zone it? Once again it is a question about value. Lee Rafalow added that Bob Strayhorn had raised an additional point, the flexibility issue; not just fair value, but the right of the property owner to determine what he or she wanted to do with their property. David Yelton said the group could still have a vision of the plan or combination of plans that most attracted them with positive elements, but whatever was chosen there would be negative's to be addressed too. Verla Insko said the group was dealing with two questions now. First was the whole range of negatives for all of the plans and second, the specific question of when the group dealt with value to the landowner. Meg Mckean said she didn't think the question of fair value to the landowner ever went away. Any set of rules will have some implications to the landowner and it was very important for the group to tease out what that set of rules would do to different kinds of landowners, i.e., little ones and big ones. She said the group couldn't run away from that question. Lee Rafalow said he wanted the group to be careful about they heard what he was to say. He said if the group were forced to choose from the plans they'd seen and if a majority rule decision - making process was used, he thought the density - neutral approach would come the closest to what most people in this room thought was the right thing to do. He said he wasn't trying to declare this as a consensus of to get people to argue with him about it. He thought it was fairly close to the sort of thing the group could agree on as the model on which to build. He said he was satisfied with putting that issue aside and focusing a little while on the issue - -- which he believed was getting in the way of good communication. He said he didn't think the group was doing as good a job as it could in terms of communication because there was one important issue kind of watching the whole process and just waiting to find something to jump on; and he felt that they needed to get it out. Verla Insko asked if Rafalow was suggesting that the group jump ahead and deal with it. Michael Warner observed fair value to landowners had been on the agenda at one meeting, but had never been talked about. He asked if it should be added to the agenda for a future meeting rather than being a by product of other discussions. Ou7