2006 – Let’s see what’s memorable. Or at least what I can remember. All things considered on that basis, this could be a really short column.
But wait – not to worry, I have the complete comprehensive Lagniappe electronic data base at my finger tips. User friendly and cleverly designed for just this sort of thing – making it easy to learn lots about news that’s now history.
Let’s see … Search “Jubilee by Topic.” Then the city pulldown menu: “Daphne.” Great: 4,257 hits for “High-rise Ordinance.” How could I forget? The city council approved (as an “emergency” measure) the construction of one high-rise on Hamburger Hill (fast-food locale). This was way back in 2005. Right after that they got worried, thinking, “Everybody would want one” and decided to be proactive (given their subsequent lack of direction and urgency, a poor word choice), by enacting a high-rise ordinance. Much debate, but really just two main issues: establishing the boundaries of a high-rise zone and determining how high should a high-rise rise.
Ah, yes, it’s all coming back to me now – watching this evolve was a civics lesson from Hell. By the sixth month of experiencing Daphne’s form of “Democracy in Action,” I was willing to support the installation of a military dictator, if only this affair could be brought to closure. But even without such drastic action, and after only the better part of two years, a high-rise ordinance was passed.
Not surprisingly, it was virtually what they started with at the first hearing. I see that at the time, I had compared the city council’s processes to those of the ritualistic Japanese tea ceremony. In retrospect it’s a poor comparison. At least you get tea at the end of one – in Daphne, no high-rise has yet to be started.
At some point in all this focus on high-rises, Mayor Brown interrupted to advocate having the city withdraw from the county school system. “Why?” is not as important as what then happened. After a half-baked report from his “expert” was appropriately ignored, cooler (and clearer) heads prevailed. The county agreed to rebuild the old Main Street School, but size it to meeting just the city’s needs (they had proposed a “Mega-school,” drawing students from a broad area). Not good enough said the mayor – it was all just a way to make it too expensive for the city to start its own school system. He had no effective backers and the other side had many – including the council. Dead issue, but it was a nice break from discussion of the high-rise ordinance.
Moving on, I hit the pulldown and click on “Fairhope” – WAL-MART comes up in really big letters with 22,001 hits. Wal-Mart in Fairhope. A hot topic – wait, there’s more: NO WAL-MART IN FAIRHOPE with 127,999. Ah, yes – a groundswell of opposition and a great campaign – arms linked in a line from US 98 to SR 181 (well almost, but still impressive).
“A Fair Hope of Success” formed, but was not a success in keeping Wal-Mart out. The Big-Box store is going up as I write this, just outside of the city – and also just outside the reach of the city ordinance prohibiting big stores like Wal-Mart. As I noted at the time, the campaign was passionate, but a forlorn hope after Mayor Kant decided not to mention his meeting with Wal-Mart officials the year prior to their acquiring the land they are presently building on. His virtual silence (he said he mentioned it to Councilmember Mike Ford, who professed no such recollection) gave the store the benefit of surprise and caused a too-late response from the citizens of Fairhope.
Next down on the “most mentioned” list is the K-1 Center. This is still very much an open issue, with the downtown merchants having just joined the cry to keep the kids at their downtown location. And yet again on the opposite side of the issue is Mayor Kant. He would like to see the USA campus spread into the K-1 Center – of course not harming the historic buildings, but gently adapting them to a new use (sure!). The county school board has final say and their cooperation in Daphne, gives Fairhope hope the K-1 Center will continue to serve those for whom it is named.
Looking down the list I see some tepid topics, which seemed at the time to be hot. The suggestion that Fairhope needs a city sales tax was a non-starter and didn’t even become the subject of much debate. If you weren’t around when “Fairhope Sales Tax” was first publicly uttered, you likely would not even be aware of the issue. Ditto on the Fly Creek PUD approval – much passion against, careful consideration by the council, accommodation on both sides, and it’s a non-issue now.
Something that is a constant issue, but with passionate opposition most often only at the individual project level, is general growth throughout the entire ESho area (I think I hear a chorus of “Duhs” at this point). Daphne is approving subdivisions and commercial developments left and right, while Fairhope has enacted a second moratorium on subdivision approval and has extended the first into early 2007. Limited home rule has given the county more authority over land use outside towns and cities and impact fees for development are in the offing. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future, but for right now that’s the way it was in 2006.
Contact Pete Gleszer at jubilee@lagniappemobile.com.
Archives
Jubilee
