Letter to the Editor: Rebuttal to editorial: Don’t disrupt the process
This article gets to the root of how I personally disagree with the PERCEPTION that the community members and conservation groups that do take the time to participate and deliver a presentation with content that is not against an issue – we are just seeking additional information that has not been provided by staff to allow us the opportunity to ask meaningful questions.
Example: transect zoning – I personally have requested detailed information be provided at public meetings by TRPA staff at advisory planning commission meetings as well as governing board meetings going back as far as May 2008. I was specifically told by the consultant from Regional Planning Partners at both those May meetings- not at this time.
I also participated in Pathway 2007 and find there are many disconnects between the meetings and the end result we are calling the new Regional Plan Update. I do agree we asked for walkable, bikeable communities – we did not ask for greater height in buildings or additional density, and not once was transect zoning mentioned. We also asked for dedicated open space, a better transportation system, Stream Environmental Zone restoration, etc.
Just to be clear, attending these meetings on a regular basis has proven to be educational, but also very frustrating, as I have waited up to 7 to 8 hours to comment.
I’m just looking for a basic/fundamental understanding of the issues so I can ask meaningful questions of the APC and governing board.