quote:
This is a zoning issue, anonymous personal attacks really shouldn't enter into it.
By that logic, supportive personal testimonials really shouldn't enter into it either. None of it should be personal; it should all be about the law. Instead, this topic grew as very heavy on the personal endorsement side, which then drew a rebuttal as to whether the level of support is deserved if all facts were known. To me that seems reasonable, but other than Rob welcoming the other side of the story to the table, the mood instantly got very challenging to the newcomer.
His own credibility attacked, he was basically encouraged to say what he could to give more credibility to his opinions, which then drew more hostility against what he was saying, because no one wanted to hear it, because it was about someone regarded highly by some members of this community.
I said in my first post that I won't be one of the people affecting the Planning Commission decision. What I'm commenting on is the tone of this topic. From the perspective of a neutral reader, the partisanship hasn't made a good impression on me and I felt like if someone wasn't going to say so, there wasn't enough diversity of viewpoint represented.
Carol, I did not say I had personal involvement with charlatans and I did not mention cults. I was fortunate enough never to fall in with Jones, Moonie, Manson, or other extremes. I said I had experience with benign philanthropical organizations that had too much ego in the mix. That the human ego is usually present in any endeavor no matter how much benefit is conceived. This is observable all the more when a person is putting 100% of his or her energy into the endeavor and has become over-identified with it.
quote:
Peregrine made extreme statements about someone while providing no evidence, which makes me think they are trying to destroy the credibility of people testifying in future public input sessions.
I seriously doubt that a Punaweb discussion is going to destroy credibility of people testifying before the Planning Commission. That is taking Punaweb too seriously. The forum for destroying credibility such that it impacts the resolution of the issue in law is at the public meetings. At most peregrine is presenting an alternate interpretation of the situation to people who may or may not be involved in speaking to the Commission, for their consideration.
My opinion as to the zoning issue is the same as DanielP's.
I am a strong believer in the principle of honoring contracts. In some ways I think civilization is built on the notion of contracts. A Special Use Permit is a contract in which one party receives consideration (the permit), in exchange for agreeing to certain limitations. The neighbors who allowed the permit to be granted gave consideration. Consideration can be NOT exercising a legal right, in this case, not challenging the original use permit based on the representations made by SPACE.
Changing the terms of a contract requires a revision between all parties. It is wrong for a party that received a benefit to cease to adhere to agreed upon parameters. Now if all the parties that gave up rights to oppose the original use permit are satisfied that they are receiving benefits that are acceptable replacements for adhering to the parameters, OK, they can reach an agreement. But obviously that's not the case. People who were not part of the original zoning process are putting themselves into the mix by arguing that the benefit to the wider community should outweigh the detriments to the immediate neighbors.
I don't think it is right, on principle, without any judgment as to whether or not SPACE is as wonderful as it's made out to be. Clearly it has become bigger than the proposal that got it a permit, and didn't go back to Planning and initiate public meetings to get approval. It wants approval after the fact. I would feel the same way if someone built a ten-story apartment building after it got approval to build a one-story multi-unit building, and then argued that it was housing orphans and should be allowed to stand. Thus obfuscating the point that there's no way they would have been allowed to build ten stories if they had applied to do that in the first place. I suppose in this case the argument is along the lines of "we never planned to get to ten stories; we just added a story every few years and now here we are, a little taller than we expected. Height happens."
