Thursday's Comprehensive Land Use meeting on Thursday only had 40 people but all 40 of those in attendance were able to speak their mind on the subject at hand.
Much of the time on Thursday was spent going through both the vision statements and projected future development ideas for the four projected growth areas of the city. Please take a look at the document embedded below and comment as you see fit. I also have about two hours of audio which shows a healthy debate (people on both sides of the development fence) on what this city should look like in 20 years. I may be able to process and upload the audio if I get a few requests.
Since this document won't be visible to my readers via e-mail, this document is also available here.
If anyone would like to sign up for the e-mail delivery of my blog, just click here.
Dnwdy Comm Mtg Sep24
7 comments:
Why is all the density being added in ONE area of the city, the south side? I feel that this area is being sacrificed so that Dunwoody can look like they are open to growth, “just not in my backyard”. I bet none (or at least only a few) of the people making the decisions lives in the south side of Dunwoody.
All three of these areas feed into one elementary school - Chesnut! I guess this is to protect Vanderlyn from any diversity.
Also, on the page about Georgetown/Shallowford they never mention dense residential or any residential and the area on the Urban Residential page is included on the Georgetown/Shallowford... so these pages contradict each other.
I say there should not be any area in Dunwoody considered "urban residential" ...those who live in south Dunwoody have the same right to "small town feel" as those in north Dunwoody.
Only 40 people showed up at this meeting. In a city of 40K that is embarassing.
You all wanted a city and now everyone sits back and lets someone else do all the work.
All the development is not on the south side of the city. Perimeter, Duwoody Village, Jet Ferry and Tilly Mill are all north or west and all are being considered for development and redevelopment.
I have asked for additional meetings for each of these development areas.
The City Council I believe will approve these meetings to gather further input.
When they are scheduled, tell your friends and neighbors to attend.
Don't complain that decisions were being made without your input. Go to the meetings and SHOUT your concerns.
Happy, make everyone happy and fill the rooms
Was this meeting "advertised" before John posted it on his blog, which where I first knew about the meeting.
Dunwoody Mom
It wasn't even in The Crier this week (and I have already recycled the week before, but I don't think it was in there either.)
I am on several email lists of various City Council people and I don't think I got a reminder about the meeting from one of them.
Someone really dropped the ball, BIG TIME.
You are absolutely right. The advance notice was terrible. It may have been legally advertised but with something this important the City did a terrible job and on the cheap.
There have been a bucnch of Land Use meetings and this by far had the least attendance.
We need to plan for the future map out our destiny. Some are for no growth others are for smart growth, but you can't make a informed decision until you are involved in the process.
Tomorrow night the Council is voting on the additional meeting. When the schedules are announced and prperly advertised everyone needs to show up. Listen learn and voice your opinions.
I don't read The Crier anymore - it just goes straight into the recycling bin. FWIW, "The Reporter" newspapers do a much better job of reporting on their communities in depth and with equal coverage. I'd like to see them start a "Dunwoody Reporter".
I also visit the City website several times a week - there was nothing on the website about the meeting. You would think it would be posted on the "official" website.
This smacks of officials not wanting to get community involvement as it might "muddy the waters" as to what officials want to do with this property.
And as for someone who did vote for citiyhoold, I want to know what is going on.
Since we elected our Council members to represent distinct districts, why not decentralize citizen input by having localized district hearings within the neighborhoods? I think a lot of people feel more comfortable airing their views in smaller settings. Do we have to run the city like every other 'big government' entity? Apparently there are people who feel strongly about the future of their particular areas of the city and they should be given the opportunity to voice their opinions directly to the Council member they elected, who can bring the results back to the full council.
Post a Comment