Posted by
Katy Grimes on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 1:09:06 PM
Splashing opinion out there for all to read is definitely opening oneself up to criticism. That is expected and anticipated. I look forward to the responses whether readers agree with me or not. I like the discourse and learn from each letter and email.
The unexpected results however, is the hatred, the anger, the personal attacks and the attempts to silence me.
Recently, I started additional writing for a wonderful local monthly newspaper, covering local neighborhood issues. Some of the responses I have received are shocking, albeit predictible knowing the players.
Several Board members of my own neighborhood association made rude and offensive comments about what I had recently written, during the board meeting last week, and on the record in front of community members. It was apparent they were trying to force me to jump up in the middle of the meeting and defend myself, so the President would then get to tell me I was out of order. Instead, I just let them ramble on and look like petty fools in front of their own neighbors. I took 16 pages of notes at the meeting, and a plethora of direct quotes. Some of the comments made by board members are right out of the Communist Manifesto; other appear to be taping a Big Time Wrestling match.
Here is what I wrote for Inside The City newspaper:
By Katy Grimes
With the Land Park Community Association Board settling in with 5 new Board members and a couple of meetings under their collective belts, there is still tension and strain amongst the ranks. The issues are many for this board however, a glaring issue seems to still be past versus present and old versus new.
The June 11th meeting was scheduled around a pre-arranged presentation by Target regarding their proposed expansion. With President Elyse Metune starting the meeting late after a pre-meeting Board-only meeting, and Target listed 5th on the agenda, one audience member suggested that Target make their presentation instead of making them sit through Board business. Discussed, hashed and rehashed, President Elyse Metune finally decided that they could bump up the schedule, but only after sitting through the Treasurers report first.
Target presented their attractive rendering of a greatly expanded (doubled in size) and updated store. The feedback from community members was positive and supportive, many agreeing that the design was not only a great improvement, but also welcome. One audience member asked the Target representative if the Target store slated for the Westfield Mall downtown would present a problem for Land Park’s Broadway Target remodel – i.e. could the area support both stores, or was Land Park in jeopardy of losing our store? The Target representatives insisted that both stores are necessary and justified, especially given that Target owns the Broadway property, and the downtown store will be much smaller at 100,000 square feet - the current size of the current Broadway store.
There were suggestions from Board members on outdoor art on the brick walls of the store, and Land use committee member Roxanne Miller strongly suggested that Target needs to provide a larger outdoor dining and “gathering area,” as well as a more visually pleasant garden center. This would only be accomplished if Target gave up retail space, which the Target representatives wisely did not comment on. Several of the Board members indicated that Target still needed to make more accommodations to comply with the LPCA urban design goals.
Following the Target representatives’ departure, the Board members discussed balancing the desire for Target to comply with LPCA design wishes, versus the chance that Target could pull-up stakes and leave Land Park given a choice between working with a difficult LPCA Land Use committee or the Westfield Mall, who are extremely desirous of filling empty space at the downtown mall. The opinions were split with the old board members wanting Target to make more concessions, and new Board members concerned that Target will grow impatient with the design nitpicking by the LPCA.
This Board has a great deal of conflict to deal with. It is clear that the old board members feel insecure by the energy and take-charge style of the new board players. Each of the new board members brings many years of diverse board experiences and procedural knowledge; the demand that the meetings are run more professionally and that conflict be dealt with on an expert level, is fueling some of the contention.
With the new board members working to increase membership and neighborhood participation, and several of the old board members voicing opposition, the meetings will only provide more local entertainment instead of getting Land Park business done effectively and efficiently. A strong showing of community and neighbor support at the monthly meetings can only serve to force this Board to do the neighborhood’s business and not continue to pursue their own agendas.
Apparently, my use of the word "nitpicking," is what offended as well as demarking the vast differences between "old" and "new" board member styles and goals.
The Target project is dicey. There are great issues with the expansion and remodel and I agree with the LPCA for being involved. The impact to neighbors who back up to the store will most definitely be problematic. However, where the nitpicking takes place is when the LPCA give the same credence to how may trees will be in the parking lot and art on the walls, as what will happen to the nearby homes when pile drivers are forced into the ground, or the ensuing dirt and dust particles that will cover the homes. The LPCA has even tried to get Target to give up retail space to create a "gathering area" outdoors for people to sit at tables and eat their nachos... as if anyone goes to Target to eat a meal. Sitting outdoors on Broadway eating a "meal" while breathing in diesal fumes and trying to talk over the traffic noise is absurd. They don't differentiate between the really big issues and the cosmetic, feel-good issues.
At the Board meeting last week, a few more neighbors living in the neighborhood near Target expressed their concerns about the project as well as whether or not anyone at Target or the LPCA is listening. The answers from Board members were rather condescending and bureaucratic in nature: they only discussed what has happened at the City level, and not what could be done by the LPCA (if anything, realistically). Several of the Board members who are employed by the state seem to relish the meetings with city staff, but get their feelings hurt when the city goes around them and does what it was planning on anyway (as they did with the Oto's project on Freeport Blvd., after the LPCA nearly forced the owners into Bankruptcy).
The issues are of real concern to all 6,000 Land Park neighbors. The beef with the Board of Directors according to most neighbors I hear from is that they are unapproachable, unfriendly to business, inconsistent with the development projects they support or try to get killed, and will turn on anyone who dares to voice a differing opinion. This Board even killed a proposal for "Transparency" at the last meeting, presented by one of the new board members. What reasonable board argues about the obvious need for transparency? Shouldn't that be a given? What do they have to hide? Currently a few of the old board members are complaining about "civil discourse." What they find so unacceptible is the different styles each Board member has. There are a few attorneys on the board, a couple of real estate agents, some state employees, a professional negotiator, a PR specialist and a business owner - very diverse grouop. Instead of using the various talents of each board member, the old board members keep trying to insist that the new board members do nothing but "watch how it's done." However, the new board members are go-getters, each used to doing, and not holding months of meetings before acting on an issue. The style issues are different, but one is not right or wrong.
As I was helping with the set up for the meeting last week, before the community members had arrived, one of the long-time board members made a rather pithy, mean comment under her breath about how this board is a problem and directed it to the new board member who had just entered the room, and how they have never had problems like this in the past... The new board members asked "then why did half of your board walk out last Spring?" The old board member actually responded, "because they weren't the right people for the board." Meow. Thus began my 16 pages of notes. Several of the board members who walked off the board last spring had years of serving the community and found themselves in the same position our new board members are faced with - a heirarchy that will not play in the sandbox nicely. (term limits come to mind...)
I will continue to write about local issues as long as I am employed to do so: Politics in The Sacramento Union and neighborhood issues in Inside The City. Unfortunately, the neighborhood issues are as political as anything I comment on at City Hall.