At tonight's city council meeting, more better described as Lord Vassar holding court and other jesters playing the fools, they announced that a "workshop" meeting was going to be held at the Harmon Recreation Center at 3pm on Tuesday, June 24th.
At this special "workshop" meeting, which is a public meeting, and, not a public forumn, they will be discussing the North Hills Country Club condemnation lawsuit and the North Little Rock Electric lawsuit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
How RUDE are you with your name calling comment.
No one person always gets their way all the time.
Our council must do what is best for the city, not one person!!
Name calling is totally uncalled for from an adult, at anytime !!
Phil, that's so typical of Sherwood,Ar
sad
Phil , did you go to this meeting today?
anybody....
hello?
Were either of you at the council meeting on Monday? I mean the whole "sermon on the mount" about Hemphill Road and the much needed connection of Maryland Avenue was just so over the top. Vassar doesn't even live in the ward affected by their decision.
Sorry if you took offense, but, at times many of the council members come across as "all knowing". It just rings with the truth of their thought process, that "they know what's best for us", even though 100% of the people that spoke from the ward are against opening up Hemphill and were for getting Maryland opened up.
You shouldn't take offense or you take things way too seriously!
The issue isn't who lives where or who you are.
The issue is "DOING WHAT YOU AGREED TO DO".
The city should not have to pay money for a developer's expense.
He agreed to put Hemphill Road in years ago and it would relieve congestion for a lot of families.
If the city side stepped the rules for one developer the next generations of developers would surely use that as a standing point to skirt the cities standard procedures of development.
Once the people that live on Hemphill know that they would have curbs and gutters, sidewalks and wider streets they will want a connection, and the residents from anywhere could use that stretch to by-pass high traffic areas.
Hmm that's funny Phil, because NO ONE on Hemphill wants to have smaller yards and a raceway going through their quiet and peaceful street.
I do agree that the developer should be held accountable to some extent, but, don't you think that opening up Maryland first is a better way to aleviate traffic congestion on Brockington?
It's only going to get worst once the flyover opens up and more vehicles are pushed through that corridor.
Okay, let's talk about this. Where is the traffic likely going to go? Is it going east and west with a street (E. Maryland) that is riddled with stop signs? Is it peak traffic periods being the morning and late afternoons? I am not going to take Maryland and lose an extra 15 minutes going to work at downtown Little Rock. That is completely insane. As far as the smaller yards and the raceway for the folks on Hemphill. What about the folks on East Maryland between Robin Lane and Highway 107? That is a straight shot and very narrow. The widening of the road in that section will negatively effect more houses than Hemphill. Now, as far as the flyover is concern, how is it going to really increase traffic on Brockington? The same number of people are using Brockington Road as long as there are no other routes to reach their destination. I don't believe either street is going to have a meaningful impact on "relieving" traffic on Brockington Road. The only viable option to relieving traffic in the area is North Belt Freeway.
1. There is a master street plan.
2. There is an agreement by the developer that I will do this if you let me do that.
When you ignore #1 you get a really fair situation. Example. People living on North Hills in North Little Rock have a huge amount of traffic on a road not really designed for that traffic. A short distance to the east a four lane road designed to carry that load dead ends at the creek.
That road isn't carrying the load it was built to carry because the people there don't want a racetrack and told their neighbors on North Hills go to hell you tote the note we were planned to carry. Commuters sit in long traffic lines on a road not designed to carry it.
Blow off the master street plan because the Hemphill residents don't want it, just remember that someone else on a road or roads never designed for those loads will pay the price for the good citizens fighting against the master street plan.
As to item #2 I don't see any great benefit to teaching developers that they can come in and make promises and not keep them. When the mayor favors letting them break their word and does so after receiving campaign donations from those involved it just looks awful.
Alderman Brooks offered a fair-minded alternative. Keep Hemphill on the Master Street Plan, make the developer keep their word about opening up Brockington within nine months. If Hemphill is kept on the master street plan, there is a chance that the developer would eventually develop near there and then open up Hemphill cooperatively with the City.
Mark - shame on you for suggesting that Mayor Hillman somhow is being dictated to by people that contributed to her campaign. The same can be said for her other opponents in that race. She approached the developers because of constituents and not contributions. To think otherwise is simply misguided and mean spirited. You aren't going to find another Mayor in this area that is more ethical and professional than Virginia Hillman. Period.
I didn't say she made the decision based on donations. I said it looks awful to take the lead on advocating a position of a contributor when that position is contrary to a prior agreement.
You can say shame if that makes you feel better it doesn't change the fact that it creates an appearance that there are two sets of rules, whether that is the case or not.
Looking at donors and the actions of an elected official is basic reporting and the public's right to know such is precisely why we require reporting of contributions. Fear of such influence or the appearance of such influence is the reason we cap donations.
Yes, Alderman Brooks did offer a very good alternative. Hemphill expansion isn't needed today but the future option if it is needed must be preserved.
If a developer in Sherwood, makes a commitment to develop a street, he needs to be held accountable and DO WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO. It really doesn't matter if the city needs this street or not, but it is going to set a president if he is not made to hold up his end of the deal, at this point.
Bill Harmon and the former City Engineer did not require the developer to follow the original plans. Plans are changed all at every Planning Commission Meeting, and (used to be) at any time in between with a wink and a nod.
MetroPlan established the Sherwood Master Street Plan and many changes have been made over the years, as many are yet to come.
Check out:
http://co.pulaski.ar.us/pdf/DraftPulMRP.pdf
I thought Bill Harmon was defeated to bring a change and integrity.
So we changed mayors to get more of the same?
Let me be VERY clear, Mayor Virginia Hillman is an honest, professional and highly ethical mayor. I realize that Mark brough up a valid point regarding campaign contributions but the same perceived impropriety could be said about other individuals on the city council.
Is it surprising that the City hired the law firm that Alderman Harmon used to work at to defend the city in the NHCC lawsuit? Nope. I'm not surprised.
Is it surprising that Alderman Sheila Sulcer, a realtor with McKimmey has made literally thousands of dollars in commissions with regard to planning changes she's aided and sales she's brokered including the parcel for a new middle school? Nope. I'm not surprised.
Is it shocking that Alderman Marina Brooks's husband Tom, literally has made millions over the Harmon years on contract that never went out to bid? Nope. I'm not surprised.
Is it over-the-top that Alderman Steve Fender, a chiropractor has made a mint with city employee's seeking back adjustments on our dime paid insurance? Nope. Not shocked.
I could go on, if need be.
'Enuf said.
I don't think they are the same perceptions.
First two woeful stretches.
The law firm Alderman Harmon once worked did business with city long after he left and before he joined the council. He has nothing to gain by the city using that firm. The partners of the firm could be disbarred for sharing fees someone not employed by the firm who does not actively participate as an attorney on the matter. He holds no ownership stake so cannot benefit. If you think he is benefitting from Grooms handling the case file a complaint with the Supreme Court and let's see what turns up and another with the Ethics Commission for Alderman Harmon failing to disclose financial interest in the firm. Thing is it doesn't exist so it'd be a waste of paper and time.
Alderman Fender? That's like saying E-Z Mart benefits because city employees get paid money and choose to spend some of it there. The city doesn't negotiate who is a provider under the insurance plan, the plan administration does that. Each city employee gets to choose whether or not to seek care. The need for the care has to be properly documented and approved by the plan administration. City employees wishing to seek such care have a number of options within the area and don't have to choose him to get the care.
As to Alderman Brooks... simple suggestion. Compare what he was paid before she came on the council to what he made after. I'd say council membership was pretty bad for his business.
Alderman Sulcer.... uh you barely touched the list, though I'd say the middle school site might be more attributed to relation to the district than being on the city council, but yeah there could be lots and lots more said.
Post a Comment