Sunday, February 08, 2009

Same Meeting, Different Perspective

After reading Larry Carson’s article entitled “Residents divided on Town Center plan” in The Sun today, you might get the impression the hearing attendees were pretty evenly divided between those who support ZRA 113 and those who would like to see major changes to the legislation.

That doesn’t jibe with the report I got from the meeting. As I understand it, those supporting General Growth Properties proposed plans for Town Center easily outnumbered those opposed. In fact, when long time Columbia resident Mike Davis asked for those in favor of ZRA 113 to stand and be counted, three quarters of the attendees that evening stood.

You certainly wouldn’t get that impression from reading Larry’s piece.

Of course, Alan Klein, the spokesperson for CoFoCoDo, was quoted. He said “his 450 members support the basic concepts of the 30-year plan but criticized specifics like a proposal for 5,500 new homes and allowing cultural buildings in Symphony Woods.”

Come on now. Are we really expected to believe that all “450” supposed members of CoFoCoDo actually voted on this position?

If so, what was the vote?

I sincerely doubt it was anywhere near unanimous.


Anonymous said...

Actually, even with many of the attendees still out in the hall after the hearing had resumed from a short break, less than half the people who had come back into the room stood when Mr. Davis asked right after the break who was in favor of the ZRA. Or are you counting the many people who hadn't returned from the break, beyond the closed doors to the hall outside and well out of earshot who just happened to be standing at that moment, too?

Please be careful when you say "In fact" that it's followed by actual facts. Otherwise, your secondhand description may be easily equated to little more than secondhand smoke.

Anonymous said...

I was there and I can validate that the report wordbones received was accurate. Mr. Davis asked the supporters to stand up and a majority of the people in the room stood up.

This really ruffled the feathers of CA board member Cynthia Coyle, who stood up and rudely interrupted the proceedings by demanding to know what Mr. Davis meant, as if his question wasn't obvious enough. It was quite the display, and she spent the rest of the evening with a snarl upon her face. Hilarious.

It was also a much better display of people standing then when Mr. Klein asked his supporters to do the same thing earlier in the hearing. Only about 10 stood up.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:55, many other people in the room also know far, far more than 10 people stood when Mr. Klein earlier asked who was against the ZRA in its current form, which seems to negate your being a well accurate source of verification.

The Sun article was balanced, fairly representative of the evening's events, and a good example of what journalism is supposed to be. And I was glad to see members of the CA Board there that evening at an open, public meeting, advocating for Columbia's best interests.

Anonymous said...

There's a lot of talk about 'how many'.

How many readers here have changed their position on Wegman's due to what was read here?

How many of the 800 readers have changed positions on any land use issue because of what was read here?

Maybe people who read these blogs are already of the same mind, and facts are not needed, information is not required, data is dismissed.

But if not, pls speak up if this is not an electronic support group.

Scott said...

Anon 9:07, Anon 9:55, Anon 6:57, Anon 7:46.... please use a name or at least make one up so everyone can direct comments/discussion points.

Anonymity is OK....but it makes it difficult to create a valid rebuttal when you don't know who is writing what.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:57, I was there. Many more people stood up when Mr. Davis asked supporters of the plan to stand then when Mr. Klein asked his supporters to stand. It's as simple as that.

Anonymous said...

Blog or blab? I asked if this was just a support group or if there was valuable new information going to readers. Instead of people responding with instances of changed minds based on data seen here, more anons surfaced and provided facts which the host immediately called tripe since he doesn't agree. So, the jury is still out.

While the range is 100 - 800 unique readers per week, the reality is likely closer to the 100 mark for an average where readers visit once daily.

If you like this site, visit the sister site at Columbia Now. It’s an amateurish regurgitation of what’s here – if you’re into boring beta behavior. (the appeal of being a beta completely escapes me) Expect some huffing and puffing following that assessment.

Still, though, these hosts who allow anon comments from people who disagree and spend the time monitoring all day, and write for readers deserve credit. It’s a significant undertaking even if you are running a professional agenda and its part of your job. Also, this particular host at this site is exceedingly patient. Patient as one who is in complete control of his life, comfortable in predictability what with the loyalty of the potently pernicious powerful outweighing any rule or guideline. But patient nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

anon 12:54, you're persuasive for only the simple-minded.

If a group of people are already standing out in the hall, how can any non-simple-minded person know for whom they would stand?

It was a nonsensical thing to ask while many people were standing already. Funny, really, as in 3-Stooges funny.