You keep plastering Walgreens all over the place.

Exactly what is the beef there? I asked elsewhere and see no answer.

Is it because there is a church there right now? A church that wants to move?

Otherwise there is commercial sites and a firestation all around it.

I don't get the beef on this one.

I think the issue is changing zoning more than it is what is there before. There were those who, from what I have read, did not wish to create a precedent that would turn that area into an entire commercial district. There was another point of contention regarding making a specific new "special" zoning area (Limited Use Commerical) specifically for this parcel.

I found the council minutes for this item; might be worth your time to read them - Click here for the meeting minutes; the Walgreen's discussion starts on page 5.

To ensure the difference between commercial and office-institutional, commercial would allow a lot of different types of things in there. The limited use commercial restricted that, but that was the issue - it was a precedent setting move and Council didn't look upon very kindly in the grand scheme of things. It's a matter of the property wasn't zoned for something like that, and the council agreed they didn't want to change it.

When I started reading a lot of the materials came back to me. And I found some new issues I had not seen before.

It is a tricky subject. I see why everyone voted the way they did and can actually fault no one.

I do think that some clarity needs added to some of the planning documents and such cited.

While there are indeed other areas where such rezoning would be totally undesired the nature of that area would have been no harm done by allowing it.

Right now there is harm to the church. They are trapped.

It is a loose-loose situation as of now.

PTC Guy - you're right. The loser is the church, for now. They will find someone to get it going, hopefully.

I think PTC is actually working now on revising their land use and zoning for the future - comprehensive plan, I believe, according to their website.

Sorry for the duplication.

Idontknow, welcome back, you were missed. And paranthetically, your other blog here tonight about asking these guys for documented proof about their assertions was needed. Bravo.

I agree with your assertion that the majority of Council (excluding Brown, who ripped David Rast a new one in public that night) was concerned about the precedent being set about changing zoning with regard to churches. Where does one draw the line? How about the Mormon Church next for a lovely Quik Trip station? Brown was wrong on this one, too. Council did the right thing by denying the zoning change.

Dan Tennant

Idontknow, welcome back, you were missed. And paranthetically, your other blog here tonight about asking these guys for documented proof about their assertions was needed. Bravo.

I agree with your assertion that the majority of Council (excluding Brown, who ripped David Rast a new one in public that night) was concerned about the precedent being set about changing zoning with regard to churches. Where does one draw the line? How about the Mormon Church next for a lovely Quik Trip station? Brown was wrong on this one, too. Council did the right thing by denying the zoning change.

Dan Tennant

Sorry, Dan...you can't have it both ways. Either you are worried about precedent or you aren't. It appears that you have built your house on sand.

1. Was the smoking ban a good thing?

2. Would you call that a precedent?

3. If the answer to question 1 was YES, and the answer to question 2 was YES, would that mean that I could then rezone every property in the City if someone asked me to, because I set a precedent in an unrelated matter?

Different situations sometimes call for a different opinion. So, yes, you can have it both ways.

Again, thanks for your comments - please feel free to lambast me as only you can!

A little lesson on the issues of putting one's name on a debate and discussion board since you obviously have not taken part in any prior to the Citizen.

Not a criticism, just an obvious fact.

Go out there onto the boards. You don't see real names hardly ever.

Why? Are they cowards or ashamed? No, they are smart for several reasons:
1. It makes it more difficult for the jokers who take a strong dislike to what you say to track you down to spam your address, mail you things you do not want to receive, make harassing phone calls and so on.
2. Names don't matter on such boards. Why? Because the issue is the issues, not the person saying them. Golden Rule is attack the message, not the messenger. Political candidates and such are the message.
3. And it dissuades people from taking hacking shots at ones computer and/web site by making information harder to gain.
4. It allows people to engage the issues who otherwise could not for very good reasons.

Trying to out someone's identity in place of answering the questions is a violation of common courtesy and board ediquette.

So shall I actually identify myself? No.

Why, because I am not the issue. The election is and you were part of the election, the last election and no reason to doubt the next because you did say you were only out of the race for now. Leaving the future wide open.

Now, if I were to address the area of PTC where Dover Square is located I would do so in light of the big issue of Stormwater issues.

There are at least five homes there that are threatened with flooding every hard persistent rain (No, where I live I am totally safe from flooding).

Then there is The Arbors. Where another group of homes are also threatened with flooding.

Cannot forget The Villas where crawl spaces and such do get flooded.

And how can we forget Tinsley Mill?

Or Flat Creek flooding to the point it can require the police to take post there to prevent accidents.

Your position on Stormwater was it is an issue that needs looking into. As is Logsdon's.

Looking into??? You guys want/wanted to be mayor and you were not even up to speed on the Stormwater Utility? Acting as if it was something not ready to be put into action?

Yea, it is expensive and going back to square one research would put off the costs of implementation which take pressure off of tax issues.

But at what cost? More years of threat and damage to homes? Old systems collapsing with no entity in place to take care of them or possible intervene before they literally collapse?

Logsdon has painted a picture he is ready to step in, reorder things, pay for it all without raising, maybe even reducing taxes (And I DID post in another Blog a quote from his site stating that). But concerning Stormwater his position is "it needs looking into."

So, excuse my ruffled feathers when I hear the rhetoric and verbiage about how knowledgeable you guys claim to be and how ready you are to dig in and make it right when you don't even know the details and realities of key issues.

Yep, push button popular items are great for politicking. But are there any indication you guys are actually ready and able to govern? No!

With all his flaws and faults, and there are more than I care for, Brown has taken action and has not been hesitant to actually come out and see what is going on with his own eyes.

Really, I hate political gamesmanship from Brown, you and/or Logsdon. But in digging into the meat of the issues I have found nothing but good sounding fluff from you and Logsdon. No substance.

I have asked many times for Logsdon just to tell me what he will actually do. Give me some substance. And all I get is statements he is winning so why should he do anything?

Because of us, the citizens? How is that for a reason?