By Pete Gleszer
Lagniappe columnist
The year opened with a bang on the Eastern Shore. In Fairhope, council member Stankoski stated (given the city’s financial situation) that the city needs a SALES TAX! And he did this in a public session, with no opportunity for the more delicate members of the audience to cover their ears and divert their eyes.
The shocking proposal, just for a moment, overshadowed the looming threat of Wal-Mart (a topic nicely covered in the cover article of the previous edition of Lagniappe). But this was just for a moment, as fellow council member Cecil Christenberry brought priorities back into focus by calling for a town meeting Jan. 23 to discuss how to protect Fairhope, the Master Plan and the Village Concept from the ravages of a big box store just outside town. But the really big show on this side was the Daphne City Council meeting – there was even coverage by the local TV stations.
Maybe the presence of the cameras explains the somewhat dramatic and emotional opposition of council member Cathy Barnette to the proposed ordinance allowing construction of more 200-foot-tall buildings in Daphne. She protested the absence of adequate public input, the acceptance of 200 feet as the allowable maximum height, inadequate consideration of fire safety and the seeming rush to get the high-rise ordinance approved by the council.
Her recitation of grievances had been preceded by a parade of residents criticizing the ordinance. There were many familiar faces – speakers at earlier public meetings – and many familiar reasons for opposing the proposed ordinance: bird deaths from striking high-rises, the desire not to have Daphne change from the way it was (insert number greater than 10) years ago, loss of access to the Bay, Daphne turning into a Gulf Shores, yielding to the “almighty dollar” and the perpetual question: “Why was there no citizen input allowed?”
To be fair, the supporters of the proposed high-rise zone were equally familiar in face and topic: many developers, land owners and builders, a few plain old supporters, praising the change in use as good for the city (and likely really good for some of them) as well as a sign of progress and good land management.
One interesting suggestion from a Daphne business owner was to encourage more high-rise construction and keep more land in its natural state. The speaker offered this as an alternative to the current preference for single-family residences sprawling over the countryside, requiring bulldozing land to build houses further and further from workplaces. This means more commuting, for longer distances, using more energy. Some speakers received applause, some quiet muttering; this speaker was ignored by both sides, apparently talking of things outside anyone’s real interest.
Council member Barnette then reported the initial results of her survey on how high to allow high-rises. She dragged out a pile of variously stapled and clipped paper and held this weighty mass up for the viewers, seeming to imply that mass equals validity.
She offered copies to the council and when Council President Greg Burnam declined, asking her to summarize her findings, we learned that she had tabulated information from 221 survey responses – more had come in later, but there had not been time to include them. It seems 78 percent of those responding wanted a height limit of 100 feet or less, while only 4 percent described a height of 200 feet, or more, as acceptable. When asked about allowing high-rises outside the proposed zone (as written, high-rises would be allowed only on the bay side of US 98 from I-10 to VanBuren Street), 90 percent said “No.”
At an earlier meeting, Barnette had announced that she thought many citizens were too timid to speak before the council or had been unable to appear for whatever reason, hence her survey. She would capture the thoughts of this purported silent majority.
There are about 20,000 Daphne residents. This is based on the most recent census as updated with real estate sales data, with an average of about 2.2 residents per household (information is from the City Clerk). With a few assumptions and fewer calculations, I come up with around 18,000 possible voting-age respondents to the survey – not counting property owners who live elsewhere. Barnette had in her hands input from less than 2 percent of the possible respondents – hardly a mandate or a breakthrough in participation.
Anyhow, the survey and Barnette’s theme of “No opportunity for public input,” was a lightning rod for criticism by the majority of the council. Greg Burnam, John Lake, Gus Palumbo and Ron Scott attacked the contention that the public had been excluded – each made the point that the opportunity to speak on the high-rise ordinance was offered month after month. The survey itself was variously described as “unscientific,” “skewed” and “a “Johnny-come-lately effort.”
Palumbo noted that there were fewer respondents among his constituents (District 7) than from non-residents. A full 50 percent of those filling out the survey were from Barnette’s district (District 2). Lake noted that concerns about keeping green-space and Bay access as reasons to block the high-rise ordinance seemed sudden.
“Where were you when I was trying to get money to buy Bay-front property? I couldn’t even get a second (to his motion),” Lake said. Burnam suggested that the survey ignored the details of the proposed high-rise ordinance and respondents just keep saying, “We don’t want them.” In short, the survey was not well-received.
Council member Regina Landry brought the heated discussion to a close by noting that the council cares about the city. “We need to tweak a few points” and can work together “to get what’s best for Daphne,” she said.
Congeniality was restored, a public work session agreed to, everyone smiled and the TV cameras shut down and went home.
Pete Gleszer covers Eastern Shore politics for Lagniappe. He can be e-mailed at pete@lagniappemobile.com
Contact Pete Gleszer at jubilee@lagniappemobile.com.
Archives
Jubilee
