Consider the other side
To the editor:
I am compelled to write to you after having listened to last nights’ City Council meeting (Feb. 24), where I saw four people destroy the livelihood of the residents who live, by choice, in Coles Creek. I know, mind my own expletive business, and I would, if these four people would have done the same. Meanwhile, they will continue to live in their perfect locations, undisturbed, as the precious paradise once adored by many, is in jeopardy.
Additionally, the environmental consequences are unimaginable. How would these four members feel if this same decision was forced on their neighborhoods? A rhetorical question (of course), and obviously not considered when they cast their vote.
Mr. Waara read 17 points that council members must consider when making their decision on these ordinances. There should be a No. 18: “How would this impact my decision if it was happening to me?”
A local media outlet reported that those speaking were mostly in favor of this change in ordinance. The writer should have clarified that they were realtors and land developers, along with one person looking for a new place to live and a business owner. Otherwise, the residents, who will be negatively impacted by this change, were opposed to it.
Lastly, a troubling topic brought up during the last two meetings pertains to two new council members being excoriated for talking amongst themselves, yet who from previous councils can cast the first stone? Can you tell me they’ve never discussed agenda issues in smaller coteries? Maybe, but unlikely. A sage participant in meetings pointed out last month that training has yet to take place for the new members so this shocking violation, that is leading to calling for their resignation, could have happened unknowingly.
“We cannot solve the problems of today with the same level of thinking that created them,” so let’s exercise good foresight moving forward, please.