Where’s the win-win in HUB?

The May 4 MDP said Leadership Circle LLC (Matt Miles owner) will withdraw the HUB planned development application and instead construct one 160-unit apartment building on that site with further build out uncertain. The developer claims the planning commission’s recommendation of reducing HUB from 500 to about 250 units isn’t economic.

On the surface the revised plan seems rather basic. In contrast, smaller competing apartment complexes being built / planned have better amenities, are located in much more convenient areas, and are apparently financially feasible.

The building approach is via zoning “use by right” requiring city staff review but neither planning commission review nor city council approval, which is disconcerting for a variety of reasons. It’s also doubtful the city code authors envisioned cramming people into one huge 160-unit building that would seemingly require extraordinary health and safety designs to protect a very high resident density.

City regulations say that developments are to be compatible with adjacent land uses. Even the revised project remains outrageously incompatible with the surrounding single-family subdivisions. If the project proceeds and ends up as 500-plus apartments it’ll be larger than those in Denver, and San Antonio. Does anyone want that?

Some think zoning “use by right” solely allows proceeding with development. That’s possible if there was no comprehensive plan, but there is.

By itself the comprehensive plan is not legally binding — however, by statute, city code (4.7.1) requires adherence to the plan. It appears the revised project essentially retains the many comprehensive plan non-compliances as the original HUB. Hopefully the city council agrees and will ensure that the city manager and staff clearly understand that use by right in no way permits ignoring, or minimizing, the importance of the comprehensive plan and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The planning commission’s recommendations regarding the HUB project must also not be disregarded.

It’s also imperative that the city council takes the $2.34 million HUB incentive off the table. Incentives should only be for bringing value to the city: e.g. reclaiming blighted areas and creating permanent jobs. If the HUB incentive were granted other housing only developers would have a legitimate case to demand similar incentives.

Given all this ... I truly hope there’s a win-win scenario somewhere out there.

Matt Goldasich


Voter suppression for minorities

The lieutenant governor of North Carolina, a Black man, denounced Democrats’ calling various states’ modest voter integrity measures voter suppression.

His words: “How absolutely preposterous. Am I to believe that black Americans who have overcome the atrocities of slavery cannot figure out how to get a free ID to vote?” and “The notion that black people must be protected from a free ID to vote is not just insane, it’s insulting.”

He also reminded us that these are the same Democrats who kept blacks from voting for decades with their Jim Crow laws and KKK.

Democrats attempt to paint as “voter suppression” all efforts to reinstate some semblance of order to the chaos Dems created. Jeff Milchen’s April 21 MDP article is an example of such dishonesty — calling states’ efforts “brazenly anti-democratic.” Given equal space, I would refute everything in his article, but let’s address a couple of his points.

Democrats’ attitudes toward minorities are both insulting and racist. Now that they no longer have Jim Crow laws, dems use the “victim” lie to keep minorities dependent on big government — to their detriment. The Navajo Nation Milchen mentions is a prime example of the futility of dependence on big government — which is the left’s goal for all of America.

The so-called “For The People Act” institutionalizes the election fraud Dems need to turn us into a one-party system. One example: Milchen mentions legalizing collecting and returning multiple ballots on behalf of others (vote harvesting). What could possibly go wrong? Maybe just the ballots for the favored candidate get returned? Or the collector “assists” in filling out the ballots to insure the correct boxes are checked? Or the individual voter doesn’t even see the ballot that is returned?

The bill would unconstitutionally strip the states of their ability to insure election legitimacy, including the states who had no allegations of election fraud and were able to count their votes in one day instead of weeks (with no “found” ballots as occurred in Democratic-run cities).

Pardon me if I laugh at Milchen’s concerns about the states controlling elections, while Democrats openly try to destroy our two-party republic. Fraudulent elections, supreme court packing, demonization of police, fomenting racial hatred, intentionally opening our borders to invasion, high taxes and unsustainable debt, second amendment infringement, etc. are not miscalculations, but carefully planned with one goal in mind: socialist tyranny.

Ed Henrie