News, News And More News

First, an update about the school and road board redistricting study group- the steering committee finally voted to recommend to the county commission, that a study group be formed to revisit the drawing of school and road board zone lines. Here’s what the DNJ had to say about it, I had planned on writing about it myself, but this article pretty much says it all.

Second, let’s talk about what went down at the Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting last night with the parking in the yards issue. As I have written before, ordinance 15-604 is, at best, confusing. There was a comment on that post that, I think, clearly explains the same stance City Attorney Evan Cope has taken. I could have done without the dig about reading comprehension, but whatever. I can see both sides of the issue. However, at that meeting Alderman Broeker introduced an amendment that would have killed the suggested, controversial “no parking in yards” section AND would have introduced language in 15-604 that was clear.

Basically, it would have stated “No parking in the streets, except where it is allowed with a permit as mentioned in 15-608.” It had far more legal language but I am paraphrasing. So Alderman Broeker introduced the amendment, and then explained it in very clear language.

I was pretty shocked when I saw Alderman Waldron begin stonewalling this. He basically said this amendment was too much and that it should be sent back to the Planning Commission (?) to get the ordinance right. I do not understand this line of thinking at all. This was to introduce language that would clean up 15-604 and stop 15-609 which was the proposed parking in yards ordinance. Voting yes on this would have given the city time to go back and get 15-609 right. So why vote no on this?

I was equally shocked to hear Alderman Green vote no on this. More shocked, perhaps since she and I had already had a brief conversation about the parking in yards and I was under the impression that she also believed that 15-604 needed to be cleaned up and 15-609 stopped for now, at the very least. Maybe she didn’t understand what she was voting no on? Maybe she thought she was voting no on 15-609 only? I don’t know. I was very frustrated to see the amendment fail.

They then voted to deny 15-609. So feel free to park in your yards.

I have to say something about this. I have heard over and over, stories of people who bought houses in areas of La Vergne that do not have much parking. They buy a starter house when their kids are young and due to the economy are there still, now that their kids are older, they have more cars than they have space to park them. Sound familiar? I know it does to me, I’m living that life. It’s difficult.

But I still support doing away with allowing residents to park in yards, *provided* the city comes up with a way to compromise with the citizens. Like, parking in the street. Or, I don’t know, not that the city can afford this, but it’d be cool if the city could provide little parking lots all over Lake Forest. I don’t know what a good compromise is because each idea has its downfalls.

I do know this. For years, the Board allowed to the developers to run roughshod over any kind of city planning that makes sense. Not just the postage stamp sized lots but everything, the way our water lines are laid, for example. We have an awful lot of line breaks and when Distribution goes to fix it, they find yet another example of the water lines being laid incorrectly. I shake my fist at all the inadequacies our city has faced due to that.

And now we have a board who has two people who were on the board during that time, one who was on the board during part of that time- and if you check her voting record (Mayor Mosley ) you would see her being the lone vote of dissention, and two members of the board who had absolutely nothing to do with this. And it makes me downright irate to see Alderman Broeker, one of the new board members, try to clean up one of the many ordinances that is not entirely clear, and it be voted down because…I don’t even understand the reasoning behind that.

I thank Alderman Broeker for trying to get that passed last night. His constant attention to matters that affect us all, is incredible. If only everyone saw things the same way.

8 comments for “News, News And More News

  1. Cee Dee
    April 5, 2012 at 10:17 am

    Kinda sounds like possibly a developer had some pull here! You are right, Ivy — the vote does not make sense, but like you said some folk were ALLOWED to do as they wished because the OWNED La Vergne — and they want to continue to do so. And now look a the mess we are in . . .

  2. Puck R. Upp
    April 5, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Has anyone looked at the delinquent taxes on city web page? Is this the same developer who owes about $175,000 in unpaid taxes?

  3. Ben
    April 7, 2012 at 1:50 am

    Well this stinks. I was really hoping this would pass. Parking in the grass makes yards look like crap.

  4. David
    April 7, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    I agree, parking in the yard makes your yard look like crap. I would rather see a yard with grass too tall than big bare mud spots because someone can’t be bothered.

    My neighbors routinely park and drive in their yard. Have I done this before too? Of course, in a pinch; but I don’t make a habit of it at all. Instead, they treat it like it’s a drive through. Makes me irate as hell, but what are you going to do.

    Rent it out and build somewhere else I guess.

  5. michaelinLV
    April 9, 2012 at 8:54 am

    I haven’t seen the meeting yet, but I someewhat agree with the idea that this should go through the planning commission before coming for a full vote before the board. Isn’t an issue like this why we have a planning commission? So they can develop and study ideas and make recomendations to the larger board? One of the problems in the past was the board not acting strongly enough. Now it seems people are viewing them as acting too strongly and swiftly. Surely there must be middle ground somewhere.

    Anyway, one I dea I’m surprised that I haven’t read. Has anyone considered the idea that most of the streets in LFE could be changed to 1 way only, thus allowing ample parking on the street? Take a quick look in google maps. Several of the main roads (Lavergne Lane, Holland Ridge, Bill Stewart) would need to remain 2-way. But then the feeder roads that conect to the main roads could be converted to 1 way streets.

  6. Doug E. Doug
    April 9, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Items from the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance go before the planning commission. They also review plans for new development. This item is from the municipal code, which is strictly dealt with by the Board. I’ve seen the planning commission do an excellent job, but the Board should just make a decision one way or the other on a parking ordinance dealing with an existing issue. There is nothing that authorizes the planning commission to review items from the municipal code. That is ridiculous. Was this suggested by someone who had actually been on the planning commission for years? Planet Earth to somebody.

  7. neal-n-bob
    April 11, 2012 at 12:29 am

    So with the termination of the codes director will the codes that are on the books be enforced????? That would be an improvement…..

  8. Doug E. Doug
    April 11, 2012 at 6:41 am

    Whatever, dude. You obviously had something engorged for this to happen (of course, I mean a dunk tank, or something filled with water. What do you think I meant?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *