Lance Osborne/Giant Eagle's Plan to Gut Highland Heights’ Zoning Code

Lance Osborne informed the Highland Heights Planning & Zoning Commission tonight that he and Giant Eagle intend to petition to put a zoning issue on the ballot, so a mega-Get Go Gas Station, Car Wash, and Convenience Store/Cafe can be operated on the Catalano’s property.

The zoning issue, as described by Osborne, would effectively gut the city’s zoning code.

The Catalano’s property is zoned for “Local Business,” which is currently the most restrictive business classification in the city---buildings can’t exceed 10,000 square feet in size and all business activities have to be conducted “wholly” indoors.

  

Osborne stated that the issue that he and Giant Eagle intend to put on the ballot will:

• Increase the size of buildings in Local Business districts from 10,000 to 25,000 square feet; and

• Remove the “wholly” inside activity restriction to allow gas stations and car washes to be operated as “accessory uses” of grocery and convenience stores.

What does this mean?

• Because the city’s less restrictive “General Business” classification includes everything permitted in “Local Business”, the Osborne/Giant Eagle zoning issue, if passed, would allow gas stations and car washes to be installed on every single business-zoned property in the city, no matter where they are located.

• The Osborne/Giant Eagle zoning issue will also effectively gut the city’s “Motor Service District” zoning classification ---along with all the important restrictions currently imposed on the location and operation of gas stations in the city.

Based on what he said tonight, it appears that Lance Osborne and Giant Eagle have declared war on the city’s zoning code.

 And since the zoning code is designed to protect Highland Heights residents, that means they’ve declared war on us too.

Grin of the Night:

Osborne told P&Z there would be “no degradation” of the Brainard/Bishop/Wilson Mills intersection if a mega-Get-Go, car wash and convenience store/cafe is put on the Catalano’s property. He also said the “city won’t have to pay anything” to improve the intersection.

Good news---if you believe it.

  

Of course Osborne didn’t discuss how residents living in the northwest corner of the city would be impacted by all the new traffic flowing in from surrounding communities. He didn't claim that residential neighborhoods (and residential property values) wouldn’t be degraded by the Osborne/Giant Eagle zoning issue and development plan.

By then again, why would he?

Drink-N-Drive?

I caught only the tail end of the presentation given to Council last week by Lance Osborne and a Giant Eagle (GtE) rep, describing their joint development plans for the former Catalano’s grocery store property.

After talking to a couple people in the know, however, I can share these details:

•  Lance Osborne’s company plans to purchase the entire Catalano’s property and lease the northern portion (along Wilson Mills Road) to GtE.
   
• GtE wants to install and operate 24/7 (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) 8 gasoline pumping stations and a combination convenience store/café, selling grocery items, prepared food and alcoholic beverages----ideal, I guess, for consumers who like to drink n’ drive 
• The Catalano’s property is currently zoned “Local Business,” (LB) a fairly restrictive classification that permits only, “retail stores and (consumer) services conducted wholly within enclosed buildings”--- i.e., conducted indoors. (Ordinance 1131.04(c)(B)). Drive-through restaurants and gas stations don’t qualify as permitted uses because they aren’t conducted “wholly” indoors.
   
• Although Osborne apparently suggested that the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) could simply grant him a “variance” to use the Catalano’s property as a Get-Go gas station, that claim is belied by Ordinance 1113.10(E) (“Standards for Granting Variances,”) which reads:
  “The Commission shall have no powers to authorize as a variance, the establishment of a principal or an accessory use which is not specifically permitted in the district in which the use is intended.”
  Translated, this means that P&Z couldn’t grant Osborne a variance to use the Catalano’s property as a gas station even if it wanted to because “service stations” are not a “specifically permitted” use in LB districts.
   
• Because gas stations can’t be operated in LB districts, the Catalano’s property would have to be rezoned in order for GtE to put a Get-Go gas station there.
• Because the Catalano’s property has to be rezoned, the fate of GtE’s Get Go plan will ultimately be decided---as it should be---by Highland Heights voters.

·     There are two questions that Mayor Scott Coleman and Council are facing at this point: 1) what is the proper and/or best way (if any) to rezone the property; and 2) should Council put the rezoning issue on the November ballot?

·   

·   Question 1: How to rezone the Catalano’s property

The rezoning issue presents a very thorny issue for Osborne/GtE---and not just because Highland Heights voters will have the last say on whether the property is rezoned or not.
Highland Heights has a specific zoning classification for gas stations. Not surprisingly, it’s called: “Motor Service District” (MSD).

According to Ordinance 1131.04(e)(1)(B), (D), (E), the stated intent behind MSD zoning is: “ To provide Motor Service Districts in convenient areas directly related to the freeway interchanges…;” “To promote the most desirable and beneficial use of the land in the interchange areas; “ and “To protect nearby residential neighborhoods by restricting the types of nearby uses, particularly at their common boundaries, which would create objectionable influences”.

It’s questionable whether the Catalano’s property qualifies for MSD Zoning given that it is not close to “freeway interchanges,” it does not sit in an “interchange area” and rezoning it as a MSD would not “protect nearby residential neighborhoods” from “objectionable influences”.
Even if it is an option---an issue that the city’s law director has yet to weigh in on--- voters would also have to agree to amend 1131.04(e)(4)(B),  which prohibits “the sale of intoxicating liquor and beer” in MSD.
That restriction is a death knell for GtE’s proposed drink n’ drive plan.

As an alternative rezoning route, Osborne and GtE could ask voters: 1) to change the Catalano’s property from the more restrictive LB classification to a more liberal “General Business” (GB) one; and 2) to add “motor service” to the list of acceptable uses on GB properties.
The problem with that option is that the change in permitted use (to allow gas stations in GB districts) would apply to all GB-zoned property in the city, not just the Catalano’s site. That means present and future owners of GB-zoned property could put gas stations throughout the city whenever they felt like it.
It also might not be legal to add service stations as a permitted use in GB areas because it would effectively render the city’s MSD zoning classification redundant and irrelevant, thereby significantly undermining the city’s entire zoning scheme.

Bottom line, rezoning the Catalano’s property to allow for a Get-Go gas station appears to conflict with both the stated intent and provisions of the Highland Heights’ zoning code.
For that reason alone, the mayor and Council need to take the time to obtain some expert legal advice and to think things through, carefully and deliberately, before responding to the Osborne/GtE proposal.

Question # 2: Should Council place the rezoning issue on the ballot?

There are two ways to put a zoning issue before the voters: Council can either agree to put it on the ballot or a property owner can get it on via petition, by collecting signatures from Highland Heights voters asking it to be placed on the ballot.
It’s faster and easier for property owners to have Council put a rezoning issue on the ballot---and it has the added benefit of showing Council’s approval of the issue.  Needless to say, Osborne and GtE are hoping that Council will agree (within the next two weeks) to put a Catalano’s property rezoning issue on the November ballot for them.

I’m hoping just as hard that Council won’t do that because I think it’s a rush job.
I think that there needs to be a lot more discussion and deliberation before any issue is put before the voters.

Why do I say that? Here’s the timeline:

GtE reps spoke with Council about the Catalano’s property for the first time on December 14, 2010.
At that time, they said that a GtE company was going to develop the entire Catalano’s property and that they were hoping to put a rezoning issue on the May 2011 ballot. When Council wanted more details, the reps told Mayor Scott Coleman and Council that they would return “within the next 1 to 2 months” with a more concrete proposal---including some sort of commitment regarding whether the existing grocery store building would be renovated, torn down or reduced in size.

A month later, Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder reported that GtE hoped to have a necessary traffic study “done within the next couple weeks”.

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2010/12-14-10_council_committee_minutes.htm

http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/committee%20minutes/2011/01-18-11_council_committee_minutes.htm

At least once a month after that, someone from Council would ask Mayor Scott Coleman and/or Building Commissioner Grabfelder for an update on GtE’s plan. The answer was always the same: there was no news; the city was still waiting to hear back from them.

Months and months went by: still nothing.

Suddenly---just weeks before the deadline for placing issues on the November ballot---GtE reappears with Osborne in the mix and it’s all “hurry, hurry” and “quick, quick” ---as if they weren’t the ones dragging their feet for the past five months. 

Osborne/GtE tell Council that they want a rezoning issue on the November ballot---even though Council has not had time to digest the details of their newest proposal for the Catalano’s property, traffic issues have never been discussed and there is no agreement on the rezoning.
They also inform Council that 24/7 operation on the Catalano’s site is “non-negotiable”.

The Get-Go gas station is likely to draw drivers from at least a 10 miles radius. (I have friends in Euclid who are already vibrating at the thought of a Get-Go in Highland Heights.)
You’ve seen Field of Dreams: “Build it and they will come.” That’s Get-Go on the Catalano’s site.

 Traffic study? Who cares! Hurry, hurry. Get it done.

I don’t know about you, but I always see red flags when people rush in at the last minute insisting that controversial decisions have to be made “right now, immediately, can’t wait.” I figure people who do that are probably trying to pull a fast one---trying to get away with something that they couldn’t otherwise, if they showed up early, with enough time to discuss things all the way through.

Like I said, when that happens I usually see red flags.
Right now, though, all I’m seeing is red.

Say What? Says Who?

Sometimes just a few quotes will give you a real feel for what went on at a meeting.
Here are some quotes from Council’s July 5th Committee of the Whole Meeting. Can you guess who said them and what they were talking about?

The Quotes

1. “There’s a learning curve that cannot be done in two years. “

2. “We took it seriously and we got it done”

3. “The answer is always more, and not less, communication. It’s a way to communicate with residents. It’s meeting them where they are. It’s a way to communicate better, faster and smarter than we do now.”

4. “(Building Commissioner) Dale Grabfelder says we don’t have to make it ADA…To me it’s a simple job renovating the bathroom... all we have to do is increase a stall.”

5.“The ADA is more than just space to turn around. We need to make sure we comply with the ADA.”

6. “If I wanted to build a deck, I couldn’t just go the building department and say, ”trust me.” We need a plan. It behooves us to have an architect to do it right…I think someone should design it, then we can go out and ask people to help build it….We had someone look at the barn pavilion professionally, we should have someone look at the bathrooms the same way.”

7. “I did give you a paper saying we wanted to renovate the bathrooms…. I spoke to Dale and asked him if we need drawings. He said we did not need architect drawings.”

8. “It’s not just the bathrooms. Don’t forget, we need to purchase picnic tables for the new pavilion.”

9. “There’s more work than we put out to bid…We just stuck to the main roads. We pared down on the repairs that needed to get done in order to get in under the budget.”

Says Who?

1. “There’s a learning curve that cannot be done in two years.”
The speaker: Charter Review Commission (CRC) Chair Dan Dombeck.
The context: Dombeck was explaining that one of the reasons the CRC recommended replacing Council members’ current two year terms with staggered, four year terms was the Commission’s belief that it takes new Council members more than two years to learn how to do their jobs.
Dombeck also reported other CRC-recommended changes that residents will vote on in November: 1) a slight wording change to clear up an internal inconsistency regarding the appointment of the Finance Director; and 2) removing the word “fulltime,” to make clear that no employee—whether full or part-time---can serve as mayor or a Council member while working for the city.

2. “We took it seriously and we got it done.”
The speaker: CRC Chair Dan Dombeck.
The context: Dombeck praised his fellow CRC members, saying, “We met since early February, regularly. We broke it (the Charter) down word by word. We had an excellent balance. Members were from different wards, different backgrounds and had different opinions.”

Although Dombeck did not mention it---perhaps because the CRC was supposed to be an independent citizens’ group---Mayor Scott Coleman was apparently very actively involved with the CRC. During the COW, Coleman took personal credit for at least one of the CRC-approved Charter changes that will appear on the November ballot.

3. “The answer is always more, and not less, communication. It’s a way to communicate with residents. It’s meeting them where they are. It’s a way to communicate better, faster and smarter than we do now.”
The speaker: Councilman Frank Legan.
The context: Last fall Legan started pushing the idea of paying an outside company to provide live, online streaming of Council meetings. The most recent price tag Legan quoted for that service: $400 a month.

Legan insisted on discussing his plan again after Council President Scott Mills indicated that there wasn’t sufficient interest on Council to pursue the matter. Legan made clear that he wanted to use the COW to try to strong-arm and corner his fellow Council members into stating on the record why they didn’t support his plan.

Legan apparently got things into better perspective by the time the COW rolled around. He abandoned his original plan and opted, instead, to read a prepared statement explaining his rationale for pushing the proposal. While Legan used lofty language and quotable quotes to tout the intrinsic value of communicating with residents, he did not address the specifics of his proposal, he did not claim that enough residents would actually listen, so as to justify the cost, nor did he contend that his proposal was the best or most cost-effective way to enhance communication with residents.

4. “(Building Commissioner) Dale Grabfelder says we don’t have to make it (the renovated Old Pool House bathroom) ADA (Americans with Disability Act). …To me it’s a simple job renovating the bathroom…all we have to do is increase a bathroom stall.”
The speaker: Recreation Director David Ianiro.
5. “The ADA is more than just space to turn around. We need to make sure we comply with the ADA.”
The speaker: Councilwoman Cathy Murphy.
The context: Inairo has been trying to get a third pavilion built in the park for several years. His latest proposal involves erecting a barn-type structure (a “Park Barn Pavillion” (PBP)), which would used by the city’s 8 week summer day camp program and rented out as a party barn the rest of the time. The proposal also includes turning the Old Pool House’s (OPH) 40+ year old shower/toilet areas into a modern public bathroom facility.

From the start, Ianiro has focused most of his attention and energy on the PBP and has downplayed the scope and cost of the bathroom renovation—to the point of claiming that it mostly involves cosmetic work. In fact, it entails much more: 1) opening a cinder block wall to install a new door where none existed before; 2) ripping up and removing rubber-coated flooring; 3) repairing and refinishing the underlying cement floor; 4) removing the showers; 5) fashioning a modern bathroom; 6) installing new fixtures; and 7) painting the new space.

Ianiro has resisted the idea that the renovated bathrooms have to meet current handicap accessibility standards, and he has also indicated that he wants to avoid public bidding by subdividing the project into small pieces. Ianiro told Council that he’s been talking to “guys he knows” and that he can get the work done cheaply---if Council would give him the authority to get the project done his way.

Building Commissioner Dale Grabfelder wasn’t present, so couldn’t confirm or explain the statement attributed to him by Ianiro. Regardless, the law (both state and federal) is quite clear: ADA/handicap accessibility standards must be met whenever older, pre-ADA public facilities---such as the OPH shower/toilet rooms---are renovated.

It would be ridiculous to criticize Ianiro for wanting to save taxpayers money by renovating the OPH bathrooms as cheaply as possible. But doing something cheaply is not necessarily the same thing as doing it responsibly, doing it well or doing it right.

As her comments reflect, Councilwoman Murphy, a lawyer, is clearly concerned with doing things right.

6. .“If I wanted to build a deck, I couldn’t just go the building department and say, ”trust me.” We need a plan. It behooves us to have an architect to do it right…I think someone should design it, then we can go out and ask people to help build it… We had someone look at the barn pavilion professionally, we should have someone look at the bathrooms the same way.”
The speaker: Councilman Bob Mastrangelo.

7. “I did give you a paper saying we wanted to renovate the bathrooms…. I spoke to Dale and asked him if we need drawings. He said we did not need architect drawings.”
The Speaker: Recreation Director Dave Ianiro
The context: Handicap-accessibility requirements aside, Ianiro also told Council that he didn’t think it was necessary to hire an architect or obtain detailed plans or drawings to guide the OPH bathroom renovation project. Ianiro suggested that everything could be simply be left to the “guys”—the trades people--that he was talking to.

Ianiro seemed to take offense when Council members told him that they needed to see a design, plan or some sort of formalized detailing of what the project entails.

Ianiro replied that he had already given Council a “paper” describing the bathroom renovation. The “paper” was an informational packet given to Council prior to a May 3rd COW meeting. It consisted of 5 pages, four of which were rough sketches of the proposed PBP. The “Old Pool House Renovation” is referenced at the bottom of the fifth page. The reference, in total reads: “Bathroom Floors; painting of Interior Bathrooms; Interior Lighting; Minor Plumbing Alterations; Possible Fixture Replacement.”

That’s it. That the “writing” that Ianiro apparently thought was a sufficient substitute for an actual design plan.

Councilman Bob Mastrangelo, a longtime member of the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission and someone who frequently injects commonsense into Council discussions, disagreed that winging it---as Ianiro advocated---was the right way to go.

8. “It’s not just the bathrooms. Don’t forget, we need to purchase picnic tables for the new pavilion.”
The speaker: Recreation Director Dave Ianiro.

The context: In the midst of discussing the bathroom renovation project, Ianiro once again turned the conversation to something he really cares about: accessorizing the PBP. Previously he told Council that he’s already picked out picnic tables and a gas grill for the party barn.

9. “There’s more work than we put out to bid…We just stuck to the main roads. We pared down on the repairs that needed to get done in order to get in under the budget.”
The speaker: Brian Mader from the city engineer’s office.

The context: Mayor Scott Coleman set aside only $252,000 in the city’s 2011 budget for street repairs. The contract was just put out to bid.
Brian Mader told Council: that he canvassed the city and determined that the city’s main streets were in most need of repair work; that he pared down the list of needed repairs to stay within budget; and the budget did not allow for any road work to be done on residential streets this year.

Service Director Thom Evans announced the results of the bid opening at the COW meeting. He stated that after taking into account the lowest bid and necessary engineering costs, the road repair budget had $20,000 to spare. Council---concerned that so many infrastructure needs were not being met---asked Mader to recommend additional work that could be done for that $20,000.

Mader’s report to Council brought the mayor’s budget priorities into clear focus once again.

While Mayor Scott Coleman did not set aside enough money in his 2011 budget to fully repair even the city’s main streets (let alone fix any residential streets), he made sure to include $200,000 so Dave Ianiro could build a party barn in the park.
I guess it ‘s really not that surprising that Dave Ianiro would get such preferential treatment. After all, Mayor Coleman once told Council that, “Dave is one of the finest people (I know) on this earth.”
http://www.highlandhts.com/docs/city_council/minutes/2010/01-12-10_council_minutes.htm


One thing that his 2011 budget shows is this:
Mayor Scott Coleman certainly can be counted on to take care of his friends.

Making Friends and Influencing People ?

City Updates

Guess You Had to Be There

Police Chief Jim Cook was the featured speaker at last week’s Aberdeen Homeowners’ Association meeting. Cook gave a power point presentation and discussed something on Aberdeen residents’ minds: a recent rash of burglaries in their neighborhood.

The three Council members who represent Aberdeen also attended that meeting. They were stunned to hear, for the first time, about the significant uptick in burglaries.
Even though Chief Cook attends most Council meetings and reports regularly on police department matters, he never told Council about the burglaries or the city’s rising crime rate.

Council requested---and Cook agreed---to share his power point presentation with Council at next week’s Committee of the Whole meeting.

Farm Market Fuels Neighbor Feud
If you wondered what the cryptic signboard message in front of Distefano’s Deli was all about, (It read: “Against Farmers Market” and listed two names, partially disguised by the use of initials), here’s the scoop.

John Distefano recently asked the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) for approval to operate a farmer’s produce market on the deli site. The plan called for the erection of a large tent on open land just to the east of the deli building.Both the adjoining landowner and the owner of Crostatas Pizzeria objected.

No surprise, it was their first names and last initials that were listed on the Distefano’s sign board.

Last week, P&Z approved Distefano’s plan—with a few alterations. The message on the sign board has since been removed.

Distefano received a variance (good for two years) to operate a produce market on the site. It will be open Thursday through Sunday, from early May to late October. The city reserved the right to revisit the issue if the market creates traffic problems or other public nuisances.


Osborne says let’s “Get Go”!?
One big surprise from last week’s Council meeting was Mayor Scott Coleman’s announcement that Lance Osborne (who owns the Shoppes at Alpha) was in “serious discussions” to buy the Catalano’s property.

According to the mayor, Osborne plans to appear before P&Z to present plans “along the lines of what we were discussing before”---i.e., to put a Get-Go gas station, carwash and convenience store on the site. Osborne also apparently envisions reducing the size of the grocery store building and using it as a retail space of some kind.

Why is Osborne suddenly in the mix? I’m guessing that Giant Eagle decided that they could get more local support for the project if they worked through a local developer. The fact remains, however, that city residents are very conflicted about the plan to use the property for a “Get-Go” gas station, and at least one Council member---Councilman Ed Hargate---has previously stated on the record that he opposes that plan.

Handicap Accessibility in the Park—Equal Access For All?
It’s been clear right from the start that although Recreation Director David Ianiro’s “Park Barn Pavillion” (PBP) project includes a number of different pieces--including renovating the Old Pool House bathrooms---the only thing Ianiro is really interested in thinking or talking about is the PBP itself.
Although Ianiro used the city’s shrinking 8 week summer day camp as the primary justification for installing a third pavilion in the park, he also claimed—without backing it up with any data---that the PBP would be in high demand and would generate a lot of rental income for the city.

Dave Ianiro’s lack of interest in anything other than the PBP was very apparent when the bathroom renovation piece was discussed during last week’s COW. Ianiro hadn’t bothered to develop an actual renovation plan for the bathrooms, and every time Council pressed him for specifics, Ianiro turned the conversation to the nifty picnic tables and gas grill that he is looking at, to outfit the new party barn with.

It apparently never occurred to Ianiro that renovating the bathrooms should include meeting state and federal handicap-accessibility requirements. Ianiro clearly envisioned only healthy, able-bodied children when he described children walking only “15 steps” between the PBP and the Old Pool House. He gave no thought to the possibility that a handicapped child might want to attend day camp or that senior citizens in walkers or wheelchairs might be included in night-time party barn events.

Appropriately, Council seemed disturbed by Ianiro’s lackadaisical approach to the bathroom renovation piece of the PBP proposal. They put the bathroom renovation plan on the agenda for next week’s COW meeting.

It’s not always easy achieving success as a Council member--or How (Not) To Win Friends and Influence People

On Wednesday night, the Highland Heights Charter Review Commission decided which proposed Charter language changes should appear on the November ballot. One of their proposed changes: staggering and extending Council terms to 4 years.

That’s a very big change for the city---one that’s been voted down, repeatedly, every single time it’s been on the ballot. To-date, residents have preferred our current system---Council members have 2 years terms, and they all run for re-election at the same time--- an arrangement that ensures accountablility to residents.



The discussion about changing Council terms got me thinking about what it takes to be a truly good and effective Council member.

 Basically, I think that takes four things: (1) being responsive to constituents (not only answering phone calls and reading email, but following up with residents about their concerns); (2) taking time to read and think about the material sent out in the weekly Council packets before showing up at Council meetings; (3) having the good sense to know when to take a stand on issues and when to compromise and/or admit defeat; and (4) embracing negotiation as a way to reach consensus.



Unfortunately, Councilman Frank Legan demonstrated real weakness in skills # 3 and #4 at last Tuesday’s Council meeting. Legan tends to be pretty dogged in taking stands and pursuing his own ideas---to the point of becoming an obstructionist when he doesn’t get his way. For example:



• In the fall of 2009, Legan supported a proposed plan to use tax dollars to subsidize a now-defunct, privately owned Alpha Drive athletic club. Council considered the proposal---and the extremely problematic contract that the city was expected to sign as part of the deal--- and decided not to pursue the matter, as did all of the other cities that were asked to participate.


Did Legan react gracefully? No, not at all. He attacked his peers, criticizing them for allegedly not letting the club’s representatives make a presentation to Council about the questionable plan.


http://highlandheightsohiohappenings.blogspot.com/2009/10/should-we-be-team-energetic.html





• Despite prohibitively high restoration costs (a structural engineer hired by the city estimated that it would cost $773,000 just to bring the building up to code), Legan (along with Councilman Ed Hargate) was adamantly against tearing down the decrepit, substandard Old Church Building (OCB) that sat in what is now the city’s new municipal complex greenspace.


At Legan’s request, Council agreed in the fall of 2009 to hold off making a decision about the OCB’s future, giving Legan more time to identify a use for the building and to come up with viable plan to pay for its restoration and operational costs.


When he was unable to come up with a concrete plan for saving the OCB, Legan focused his efforts on delaying the vote. He refused to discuss the building’s demolition and, once again, he responded by attacking his peers. He accused them of “being hasty” and rushing to judgment---even though (thanks, in part, to Legan) more than two years passed before Council finally voted to tear the OCB down (for less than $30,000).

http://highlandheightsohiohappenings.blogspot.com/2009/10/renovating-old-church-building-on-city.html
http://highlandheightsohiohappenings.blogspot.com/2010/09/decision-time.html



• Legan went into attack mode again on Tuesday night, after Council President Scott Mills announced that there did not appear to be any interest in pursuing a proposal that Legan had been pushing since last year. Legan’s most recent proposal entailed paying an outside company $400 a month to host online, live-streaming of Council meetings.



Council’s tepid reaction to Legan’s plan may be explained, in part, by the fact that Council is already spending close to $6,000 this year to replace its failing analogue recording system with a digital one. And then again, another problem may be that Legan has not done any research to determine whether residents are even interested in paying for live, on-line streaming of Council meetings and/or whether there are more cost-effective ways to make Council meetings accessible to residents who don’t want to attend Council meetings in person.



When he heard Mills’ announcement, Legan did what’s he done before: he went into attack mode. Legan insisted (as is his right) that the matter be added to next week’s Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting. Legan made clear that he wanted the item on the agenda not because he wanted one last opportunity to pitch his plan, but because he intended to try to strong-arm his fellow Council members into “say(ing) on the record why” they don’t support it.

 Talk about NOT making friends and influencing people.



No doubt Councilman Frank Legan gets very frustrated when his fellow Council members don’t respond enthusiastically to his ideas. Still, it’s hard to see how his aggressiveness and obstructionism will lead to better collaboration and support for his ideas in the future. Apparently quiet discussion and one-on-one negotiation just isn’t his style.



As my dad used to say: “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”

 Despite his many years of experience as a Council member, that seems to be one concept that Frank Legan has never truly embraced.