Letter: Eagle’s Nanny ordinance
At these novel Wednesday meetings, the public may find it opportune to file an objection to this special legislation that in effect changes the Rules of Procedure to accommodate, economize, and fast track one privateer to the exclusion of the rest of the CBD owners and/or developers; ergo, were I to apply to redevelop the Brush Creek Saloon building, would I be relegated to the P&Z hearings and then the Council meetings (every other Tuesday for each)? Or would I also be able to effectively eliminate the P&Z stage of the proceedings? I wonder!Would this be an Equal Protection issue for Ed Sands to address – like the last time when the town of Eagle endeavored to change the rules, raising this issue would give an appellate pause to the town of Eagle as well as ERS; viz., last time the town of Eagle tried to reverse the advisory decision of the P&Z (of denial), when the rules did not provide for such; and then after pause and reflection, it parsed the issue by sending the matter back to the Gray Area (Planning) for reconsideration under some vague rationale; query, just what is the emergency upon which this new regulation is based?Finally, perhaps the town of Eagle should consider the interests of those concerned in the matter; on the one hand, you have the profit interests of Trinity/Red, and its desire to economize the proceedings by shortening the process, and to expunge the P&Z adverse affect; then you have the interests of the town of Eagle Council members by their endeavoring to control and direct the P&Zs deliberative and independent consideration of the issues; ergo, it is not too political to have two diametrically apposed results that are fomented by two governmental forums (one appointed and one elected); finally, you have the interests of the taxpaying public to consider – do we maintain the historical due process that allows for public input at two separate forums? Or do we eliminate the publics participation in the matter by allowing them to speak only before the Council (maybe a minute or two per person at some of the meetings)? Ergo, I would opt for the independent take of the P&Z in its own forum from the answers that ERS fields in response to the questions from the P&Z. By the novel ERS process of a combined hearing, the advisory function of the P&Z is dissipated, since it will only be relegated to a spectator like the rest of us in these hearings – is this new ERS hearing/process a Nanny Ordinance?