Reviewing the transcript of the meeting while preparing Chapter 2 of my report I have some initial observations of the June 15 hearing.
The developer evidently heard the rebuttal from the previous meeting that community speakers are not ignorants spouting opinions and feelings but giving real evidence. So this time, they loaded up their presentation with all their experts and each detailed their extensive credentials to display their expertise superiority.
But it seemed like both sides were talking past each other. Community speakers raised specific points that could have been rebutted specifically but instead the developer's experts cited existing rules, laws, plans, studies, policies, etc. in place that allow and justify the developers proposal.
For example, one developer speaker asserted that because of an arbitrary line drawn on a map years ago, the project site is not rural. But anyone on the property or in the area can plainly see that it is, in real life, rural.
It shows that though the community lives in reality, developers can summon a blizzard of documents represented by professionals expert on presenting them as an alternate reality.
Another thought is that they use the old "divide and conquer" method. They rebut or justify each individual point that might be acceptable on its own but ignore what we get when 30 different negative aspects add up to a monstrous, dangerous and inappropriate project.
Anyway, back to transcribing the 6 hour meeting into a narrative we can all follow and understand.
Members Discussion