(From the Oregon Department of Transportation). Read about MMAs in the prior post for more information on the topic.
The Multimodal Mixed-Use Area (MMA) designation is applied by local governments to downtowns, town centers, main
streets, or other areas inside Urban Growth Boundaries where the local government determines that there is:
-
High-quality connectivity to and within the area by modes of transportation other than the automobile;
-
A denser level of development of a variety of commercial and residential uses than in surrounding areas;
-
A desire to encourage these characteristics through development standards; and
-
An understanding that increased automobile congestion within and around the MMA is accepted as a potential
trade-off.
What happened to the City Council's votes?.
On Dec. 3, the City Council finished its discussions and changes to both Packet 1 and 2 of the Comprehensive Plan update. The Council carefully considered each goal, policy and action measure, and voted on changes that they decided better reflected the values and opinions of themselves and the public. Key issues were altered, or in come cases deleted. The Council tentatively approved the Plan with the changes voted upon and directed the staff to re-write the altered sections and bringthe Plan back for their review and final adoption. Though they had alread voted to eliminate the MMA designation from the Plan, Council asked Staff to bring back information on the topic so they could understand it better.
The Planning Staff recommended that the Citizens' Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have another opportunity to look at the Plan in its entirety with the changes noted and the Council agreed. The Council did not ask for further recommendations, comments or changes as these groups and the public, at hearings, had all had their input prior to the Council's final decisions.
For what purpose were these meetings held? Why didn't the Planning Staff just make the changes and return the document to Council as is customary practice? It appears someone tried to make an end run around the Council's authority because they didn't like the outcome of their decision-making - that they wanted a re-do and took the document back to more sympathetic groups for support and political pressure on the key issues that would drive their planning efforts going forward.
The MMA seems to be one of the hot-button issues that has people angry and nervous. Now that you know what it is all about - density, attracting developers to an area, a commitment to transit and active transportation over auto use, restricted parking, prohibited low-density development and development that needs automobiles, higher rates of congestion.... and though it isn't mentioned, a lower quality of life. Other hot topics are requiring affordable housing or setting targets for construction of a certain number units per year, even though the council expressly said it did not want to discourage low-income housing, neither did they want to mandate it or support it with city funds.
American government gets its power from the people - it is a bottom-up process, not top-down. But it is seeming to be more of an inside-out business, and I want to know what happens to the Council votes and directives after their meeting is adjourned, because those are the people we elected for office, and no one should be allowed to steal the democratic process from us.
On Dec. 3, the City Council finished its discussions and changes to both Packet 1 and 2 of the Comprehensive Plan update. The Council carefully considered each goal, policy and action measure, and voted on changes that they decided better reflected the values and opinions of themselves and the public. Key issues were altered, or in come cases deleted. The Council tentatively approved the Plan with the changes voted upon and directed the staff to re-write the altered sections and bringthe Plan back for their review and final adoption. Though they had alread voted to eliminate the MMA designation from the Plan, Council asked Staff to bring back information on the topic so they could understand it better.
The Planning Staff recommended that the Citizens' Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have another opportunity to look at the Plan in its entirety with the changes noted and the Council agreed. The Council did not ask for further recommendations, comments or changes as these groups and the public, at hearings, had all had their input prior to the Council's final decisions.
For what purpose were these meetings held? Why didn't the Planning Staff just make the changes and return the document to Council as is customary practice? It appears someone tried to make an end run around the Council's authority because they didn't like the outcome of their decision-making - that they wanted a re-do and took the document back to more sympathetic groups for support and political pressure on the key issues that would drive their planning efforts going forward.
The MMA seems to be one of the hot-button issues that has people angry and nervous. Now that you know what it is all about - density, attracting developers to an area, a commitment to transit and active transportation over auto use, restricted parking, prohibited low-density development and development that needs automobiles, higher rates of congestion.... and though it isn't mentioned, a lower quality of life. Other hot topics are requiring affordable housing or setting targets for construction of a certain number units per year, even though the council expressly said it did not want to discourage low-income housing, neither did they want to mandate it or support it with city funds.
American government gets its power from the people - it is a bottom-up process, not top-down. But it is seeming to be more of an inside-out business, and I want to know what happens to the Council votes and directives after their meeting is adjourned, because those are the people we elected for office, and no one should be allowed to steal the democratic process from us.
No comments:
Post a Comment