[NLC] Sustainability Commission LUTSCO discussion on 3/17 <- date corrected
matthews at artifice.com
Tue Mar 16 14:27:11 PDT 2010
Josh, thank you for the thoughtful reply. Looking forward to the real conversation - plenty to discuss. Hope I can drop in tomorrow, too.
with best wishes,
PS: To move the memo away from feeling infill-centric... I'll suggest offering other substantive new strategies, so infill doesn't look so much like the bulk of the recipe. Such as, for example, addressing the geography of VMT... (I hope you've had a chance to follow up on the Growing Cooler citation I passed along.)
PPS: Why go into such length about integrated, collaborative problem solving, and then make such a point about the necessity of harm? (I won't buy the diversion about perceptions.)
PPPS: Let's have the conversation, already! :-)
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:11:50 -0700, Joshua Skov wrote:
> Thank you for the comments. Three quick responses:
> (1) I've attached the newest draft. The Commission's on-going
> discussion is moving this topic into new territory, so perhaps you'd
> like to come to hear it.
> (2) Our meeting is Wednesday (tomorrow), March 17, not tonight. Just
> an FYI.
> (3) Though I love the use of the word "portentous" -- the use itself
> being a little bit...portentous :) -- I'm frankly a little bummed by
> your comment about "infill-uber-alles" -- especially since we clearly
> provided caveats and context that you've done nothing to
> acknowledge. You appear to be deliberately reading it out of context
> as a dogma that you oppose. Lookin' for a fight? You won't find one
> here. The Commission isn't a bunch of infill zealots. Of course, we
> aren't anti-infill zealots either.
> Also, I didn't return cc these e-mails because I don't know who they
> go to. But of course you're welcome to forward my response.
> nlc at eugeneneighbors.org
> Friends of Eugene Board of Directors <foe_board at friendsofeugene.org>
> Finally, I should note that, while I personally would love to get
> your comments, I'd rather set up that conversation that...I've been
> remiss in setting up. I think e-mail is perhaps the least effective
> way for us to dig into this material. I'll try to schedule something
> with you and Paul shortly (apologies for the delay -- family and work
> have pinned me down).
> Again, thanks for your comments and your thinking. And apologies for
> the portentous writing -- lay that one on me, not the other
> subcommittee members!
> Joshua Skov, MA, LEED AP
> Good Company
> making sustainability work
> 541.341.GOOD (4663) x211
> F: 541.341.6412
> 65 Centennial Loop, Suite B, Eugene, OR 97401
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Kevin Matthews wrote:
>> Dear Kevin,
>> I wonder if you could help me understand whether this draft from
>> October 25, 2009 is the most recent version of the memo from the
>> Land Use and Transportation Sub-Committee (LUTSCO) of Eugene’s
>> Sustainability Commission:
>> If I understand the agenda for the Sustainability Commission meeting
>> (tonight at 5:30pm in the McNutt Room at City Hall)...
>> ...finalizing this LUTSCO memo, for presentation to the City
>> Council, is an important topic of discussion.
>> Although mostly generalities, the October 25, 2009 draft memo is of
>> substantial concern. On the one hand, it includes portenous
>> statements like:
>> "We believe that Council and staff would be well served by being
>> better versed in articulating reasons for decisions in spite of
>> their apparent inequity in the short-term. Occasionally, this will
>> mean delivering tough news to individuals and interest groups who
>> perceive harm from certain decisions."
>> With that stragne interpretation of 'win-win solutions' being
>> apparently coupled with what could be interpreted as virtual
>> code-words for promoting residential infill, as in the first item
>> listed for specific strategies:
>> "Facilitate compact residential development that fits with and even
>> enhances neighborhood character"
>> On the other hand, while the October 25, 2009 draft fails to account
>> for concrete technical research provided to sub-committee members,
>> more importantly, it fails to define, or really even suggest, actual
>> new strategies or policies sufficient to change (improve) the
>> sustainability effectiveness of our efforts in land use and
>> transportation planning over the last ten years and more.
>> I'm disappointed that the subcommittee has apparently made so little
>> progress beyond the failed and discredited infill-uber-alles
>> approach of the decade old land use code update.
>> All that said... I absolutely would not want to spend anyone's
>> meeting time commenting on an obsolete draft memo.
>> I would appreciate the opportunity to provide up-to-date and
>> well-informed comment, if any newer draft of the memo is extant.
>> Thanks sincerely,
>> Kevin Matthews
>> Friends of Eugene
>> Please join with Friends of Eugene to help save our city's creeks
>> and ridges and rivers, for birds and fish and trees and otters and
>> people, too. For affordable housing and urban place and green space
>> and greater health and happiness.
>> This special part of Oregon needs all our hope, help, and love
>> together to create real solutions to West Eugene transportation
>> concerns, for downtown revitalization and riverfront restoration,
>> to drive comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reductions, to
>> reach toward social and political and environmental equity, to
>> support all the efforts for a safe, fun, sustainable, livable
>> Please help, join, and contribute online:
More information about the nlc