The IT Town council met for their September 12th meeting and when it got time to hear the Quasi Judicial project for the Downtown LLC group (Harrell, Moser, Edwards)on the 16 conditions they wanted to have amended they were met with the Lawyer Mr.Goodwin. He stated that he represented his clients and was officially asking that Councilmember Dan Schallenkamp recuse himself due to the fact they believed that an unbiased decision could not be reached by Mr. Schallenkamp thus denying his clients of their due rights in this process????? Mr. Schallenkamp and his lawyer stated that they had not had time to review the so called evidence against him and at this point insisted he be given ample opportunity to review the binder they had put together. The council voted unanomously to table the downtown project for another month so as to give the councilmember ample time to respond to the charge. That didn't sit well with the Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Harrell who insisted on the matter being heard in 2 weeks due to the fact his clients had waited 2 years to get started...again the council voted unanomously to give 30 days(personal comment OH BOO HOO!!!) as if another 2 weeks will kill them.
Suffice it to say I believe their case to be very weak and this is just an example of bullying the council into actions they may or may not want to take.
When this project was approved by the previous council it was done so in what many believe to have been done in haste so as to get them approved. In that process the previous council attached 44 different conditions to the project. Supposedly, all have to be achieved prior to the project getting started or completed. The petitioner has the ability to come back before council to ask for changes to the conditions, though the council can vote to not change anything, vote to change some or all the requests being presented. A note that should be made is that the there was very little opposition by the members of the Downtown project when these conditions were placed. The current council does not have the ability to establish tougher, restrictive, or more conditions. They can vote to keep it the same or to make it easier on the developer.
So what does this all mean???? It means that developers that feel they are not getting a break (their opinion) can apparently ask an elected official to recuse themselves from the proceedings...if they feel the person in question can't make an unbiased decision. If that person refuses to recuse themselves then the remaining council gets to vote on this topic....this is a change from the previous law that basically stated you only had a conflict of interest if there was a financial gain in the decision.
If they succeed in getting Mr. Schallenkamp recused this could have far reaching affects everywhere in the state. A lot of people run for office because they believe that they can make a difference. A long the way whatever topic got them started they were passionate about and that kept them fired up. Mr. Schallenkamp from everything I have ever heard opposed that downtown project primarily for 2 reasons. The density of the residence (604 apartments, condos, townhomes)on part of that 47 acre parcel. I believe it topped out at something like 20 per acre...very high density. That led to the 2nd part the safety issue. Putting all those people in that small of an area onto Indian Trail road which is overcrowded as it is without adding anyone to the mix. Funny thing though...Mr. Schallenkamp is not able to change the density of this project. In fact he represents 1/5th of the vote...his vote alone won't send the LLC into financial ruin. The rest of the council could vote for the condition leaving Mr. Schallenkamp all by himself??? This action also takes away the ability to speak out against any developer without possible repurcussion later. In order to be a candidate you won't be able to have an opinion of any kind or even be able to read a newspaper because that might make you opinionated.
Worse yet, it will take the power of the people out of their hands. Mr. Schallenkamp was elected for a number of reasons...one was his stance on high density housing. The people of IT that cared enough to vote, thought he was right for the job after the previous 4 years of uncontrolled growth. Mrs. Howe ran on a very similar platform...so whats next get her too??? Apparently, the developers and their interests aren't interested in fair play as much as having the odds in their favor. I hope the voting public pays attention to what is happening and reacts accordingly...any comments????
