Please note that your signature and personal information will not be made publicly available. It will be shared only with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council

Developers Harry and Tammy Law have hired consultant Scott Mack of Townsite Planning to take them through the rezoning process of their home lot at 5485 and the adjacent lot of 5495. They submitted an application (RA000454) to create a ten unit town home project. The sites are located right at the Godfrey Road and Grace Place round-about intersection.

In order to do this, they must rezone two properties from Single Family Residence R1 to Multi Family R6. And they have informed us in their letter to announce the Neighbourhood meeting that we have this option – the rezoning or they will do the same just through getting a variance. They think it is better for us to go with the townhouses. We think it is best that we see Single Family homes out our windows.

We appreciate the process made available to us by our local government who is serving we the people here. And we trust that they will take our concerns into account when making the recommendations on which path to take to the City Council.

This development is not in the best interest of the people of this area who wish to live their lives here and these are some reasons why and comments will be added below.

This is an established neighbourhood. The properties requesting subdivsion are in the middle of an established R1 Neighbourhood.

The people who bought and live here have a personal stake in what occurs, they made their choices about where to live and what type of area and chose this neighbourhood. They invested their money, time, energy and effort. They made their homes and live their lives under the agreement of Single Family Residential neighbourhood.

The proposed townhouses do not look like anything around here. They are very sterile, modern and commercial looking. This type of development belongs near a commercial center or in a new construction area.

Many people have their forever home here. If the application is approved now the view and ambiance of the neighbourhood is going to change, not because someone wants to add a carriage house or an addition, but because a few people want to make a quick profit and forever change the nature of this community.

This is an unnecessary step in the wrong direction and will be a negative change and set a dangerous precedent for the future of this community.

These developers seek to change the nature of the neighbourhood.

We would not want to limit ourselves needlessly however this development really brings the issue up, because once it starts is it just going to be one after the other until all the lots are subdivided down into the smallest possible units. Is that a healthy community? Who wants that for us? Do we just keep selling and moving and selling and moving. Eventually, where do we move to? And there is a huge cost in peoples time and energy to constantly move away from situations they prefer not to be in.

Many people felt existential threat when the development sign appeared that now they would have to move.

The Developers said in a comment that they are doing the very best for our neighbourhood. We say the best thing it to keep it like it is. Want to build a new home and take down the old one, great. Want to add an addition, garage or carriage house, great. Want to build a commercial strip mall looking development. Not so great.

Who really bears the long term hidden costs of their for profit venture?

And let talk about personal investment. It is highly unlikely that the people gaining profit from this development will actually live on site during construction or in one of these units for any length of time afterwards. Therefore having no personal stake in the undesirable changes to occur if this proposal is approved. So while construction is going on, they will be elsewhere out of the dust and constant noise and commotion of the job site.

We will not be out of the way. Instead we will have our peace disturbed for maybe a couple years during the construction. Hammering, vibration and noise all the time. A lot of extra house cleaning with the dirt, dust and mud. Construction vehicles, heavy equipment and more.

And then there is the vegetation eye sore. All the old bushes and trees will be removed and it will be years until the new landscaping grows up.

While they make the profit, our lives are imposed on for no return on our investment, our lost rest and peace.

Increase Congestion. Then we will have the congestion as they fit 20 cars and 10 units into two lots including all those people and their pets and extras. Where are they going to fit visitor parking space for dumpsters and all that? There won’t be much room with the sidewalks for extra parking. This is going to end up like the situation on Swordfern going onto Extension. There is so little space there, the streets are piled with cars resulting in only one derivable lane and you have to watch to not hit mirrors.

Godfrey is already a very busy street. We want a neighbourhood that our kids can bike around with out fear. This entrance to this subdivision is right at the bottom of the Godfrey Rd hill and the kids have to be skilled enough to stop and screeches are common. Having cars come in and out at this location will be dangerous for our kids and people walking.

This is not tearing out old junk to make an area new. It is one thing if a development comes in to rehabilitate an area. If the houses were in a very sad state of repair. A new development can turn that around.

This isn’t that situation. This proposed development would tear down or remove two homes. On very nice home that they just spent years diligently redesigning and expanding on and a very well maintained manufactured home. Tearing down the nicest house is normally backwards.

And please note that this also effectively evicts a family for the sake of the development.

The neighbourhood has treated Harry and Tammy Law well. They did not contest their recent requests for variance. It is our Wish that they take into consideration that they are making a change that Does Impact the nature and quality of Our Lives.

We recognize the City must be responsible and make decisions on how to grow our town. Please take our concerns into consideration when evaluating this project.

Thank you

The City of San Diego owns the .46 acre Park and Ride at 10211 Rancho Carmel Drive, which the City is in the process of selling. A developer called New Pointe Communities, Inc., from Rancho Bernardo, has bid on the property and submitted a proposal for a 48-unit (one and two bedroom apartments) 4-story affordable housing apartment complex.

The property is currently zoned for 8 dwelling units. The developer is in the process of seeking a re-zoning of the property to allow for the 48 units. A zoning change requires going through the Carmel Mountain Ranch/Sabre Springs (CMR/SS) Community Council for an advisory vote, then to the City Planning Commission for a vote, and then finally to the City Council for a vote. The developer already submitted a request to the CMR/SS Community Council advisory at the November 14th CMR/SS Community Council meeting and has garnered support from the City Planning Commission. Unless members of the community speak up and let District 5 Councilmember, Mark Kersey, know our opposition, this project is likely to be approved.

The proposed project does not align with current CMR community plan objectives in many respects. Most importantly, it exceeds the highest level of housing density planned (i.e., “medium-density”) of 30-43 dwelling units per gross acre by more than half. It is also not consistent with the current development design objective to “be compatible in scale with adjacent development by the use of transitional design elements and density progression.” There is no other 4-story building in the community, and the property in question is adjacent to the undeveloped former golf course and the neighboring 2-story community of Provencal.

Members of the CMR/SS community understand the City’s objective to establish more affordable housing in San Diego. That objective should not be in conflict with individual community objectives as this project clearly is (https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy//planning/community/profiles/pdf/cp/cpcmrpehousing.pdf). There are more appropriate places to build affordable housing than this less than half acre property.

Please join other concerned members of the CMR/SS Community in expressing opposition to this project by signing this petition today! Time is of the essence. Act now before this developer’s proposal is approved and it is too late.

You may also contact Councilmember, Mark Kersey, directly regarding this matter:
City Administration Building 202 "C" Street 10th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 236-6655
markkersey@sandiego.gov

The applicant, Atlantic Solar, LLC, has requested that the Hopkinton Town Council pass two related ordinances to amend the town's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to rezone 30 acres of property from RFR-80 rural residential use to "commercial special - solar only" and to allow the applicant to install and operate a commercial solar energy power plant covering 10 acres of land.

The Town Council is under no obligation to provide such legislation to the applicant and can simply refuse to do so.

The subject property is situated in a rural, residential zone near 568 Main Street (Route 3), surrounded by other residential property, where the commercial manufacture of electricity is prohibited.

The Hopkinton Planning Board has reviewed the project and issued an adverse Advisory Opinion on October 9, 2018, recommending that the Town Council DENY the applicant's request on the basis that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map are not consistent the goals and objectives of the Plan.

Please indicate on the petition whether you are an abutter, a nearby neighbor (3000 foot radius) or a Hopkinton resident.

See the list of abutters and neighbors, and other information on the Atlantic Solar project, here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f6e78eb7yjv6v7h/AADiA23_LFs-CFPjQsyQvYR6a?dl=0

We also urge Hopkinton residents to take a moment to sign our petition against the Skunk Hill Solar project - which is many times the size of the Atlantic Solar project - here:

Say No to Skunk Hill Solar! Petition

In addition to the petitions against these specific projects, we also urge Hopkinton residents to sign our petition opposing the threat of solar sprawl and the practice of "spot zoning" to accommodate the efforts of solar developers to industrialize rural, residential neighborhoods in Hopkinton.

Here is the petition to "Keep Hopkinton Country!"
Keep Hopkinton Country! Say No to Spot Zoning and Industrial Solar Sprawl Petition

Here is a link to our crowd funding campaign to pay legal expenses:
https://www.gofundme.com/KeepHopkintonCountry

Τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια που πραγματικά λειτούργησε ανέπτυξε πρωτοβουλίες που την μετέτρεψαν από απλή βιβλιοθήκη-αναγνωστήριο σε κυψέλη πολιτιστικών πρωτοβουλιών: εκδόσεις, εκδηλώσεις, εκθέσεις μεγάλης σημασίας, συγκέντρωση-επεξεργασία και έρευνα αρχειακού υλικού. Όλη αυτή η εργασία τόνωσε τη φήμη της, αλλά και δημιούργησε νέες ανάγκες και απαιτήσεις για την ομαλή κι απρόσκοπτη ανάπτυξη της.
Αισθάνεται κανείς γραφικός, όταν αναγκάζεται να επανέρχεται στα αυτονόητα, να επαναλαμβάνει απλές κι αδιαμφισβήτητες αλήθειες. Από την έναρξη των εργασιών στο κτήριο Αχτάρικα, όλο και περισσότεροι συμπολίτες μας ζητούν από την δημοτική αρχή να ξεκαθαρίσει το θέμα της προοπτικής της Β.Β., να δηλώσει τις προθέσεις της για το μέλλον του ανεκτίμητα σημαντικού αυτού «περιουσιακού» στοιχείου της πόλης μας. Αυτή αρνείται να το κάνει. Αντί για επίσημες δεσμεύσεις, για αποφάσεις που θα τελειώνουν το θέμα, αρκείται σε νεφελώδεις τοποθετήσεις και δηλώσεις-πυροτεχνήματα. Φυσικά, ούτε λόγος για απόδοση του συνόλου του κτηρίου στη Βικελαία.

Το ισόγειο πρέπει να δοθεί σε εμπορική εκμετάλλευση. Ρωτάμε γιατί; Ένα είναι το επιχείρημα: Πρέπει να χρησιμοποιηθεί το μίσθωμα των καταστημάτων του ισογείου για να εξοικονομηθούν πόροι για την λειτουργία της Β.Β. Αλήθεια, τι μίσθωμα θα είναι αυτό, που μπορεί να συνδράμει αποφασιστικά στην απόσβεση ενός τέτοιου κόστους; Πόσο απογυμνωμένη από δράσεις και προγράμματα οραματίζονται την Β.Β., ώστε να μπορεί να συντηρηθεί από τα ενοίκια τριών καταστημάτων; Γιατί πρέπει ο Δήμος να επιζητεί έσοδα ακόμα κι από αυτό το έργο; Όταν κατασκευάζουμε σχολεία, μουσεία ή βιβλιοθήκες, πώς υπολογίζουμε ότι θ’ αποσβεστεί το κόστος τους;

Σε μιαν εποχή που η αγορά θεωρείται το ανώτερο ιδανικό, που κάθε πολιτιστική δράση χλευάζεται σαν αντιπαραγωγική, θα περίμενε κανείς πως η Δημοτική Αρχή, εκλεγμένη των πολιτών και θεσμός που βρίσκεται δίπλα τους, θα επεδείκνυε περισσότερη ευαισθησία στις ανάγκες τους, αλλά και θα προσπαθούσε να λειτουργήσει σαν ανάχωμα στην επέλαση της λογικής, ότι χρήσιμο είναι μόνο ότι αποδίδει οικονομικά και μάλιστα άμεσα.

Απευθυνόμαστε σ’ όλους τους δημότες που αισθάνονται ότι υπάρχει μια κοινή ζωή, ένας κοινός χώρος, στον οποίο χωράμε όλοι, και η αγορά και ο πολιτισμός – και η δράση και η γνώση. Σ’ όλους που, ακόμα, πιστεύουν πως η γνώση και η μόρφωση είναι παράγοντες ανάπτυξης και πλούτου. Σ’ όλους που ενδιαφέρονται να εξασφαλίσουν ένα περιβάλλον πολιτισμού και αξιοπρέπειας για τα παιδιά τους.

Ζητάμε:

1. Η Β.Β. να ξαναγίνει αυτό που ήταν. Να ενισχυθούν και να επεκταθούν οι δράσεις της Β.Β. με την αξιοποίηση και ανάδειξη όλου του υλικού που διαθέτει.

2. Να οριστούν άμεσα πολιτικός υπεύθυνος και επιτροπή εποπτείας, με τη συμμετοχή και της Βικελαίας. Να δρομολογηθούν οι διαδικασίες για την εκλογή και τον διορισμό εφόρου.

3. Να μεταφερθούν τα αρχεία που βρίσκονται αποθηκευμένα σε συνθήκες σήψης σε χώρους που μπορούν να εγγυηθούν την προβολή και αξιοποίηση τους. Διαφορετικά να μεταστεγαστεί το δημοτολόγιο και να αναπτυχθούν σ’ όλο το κτίριο τα βιβλία και οι εφημερίδες, μέχρι να μεταφερθούν στα ανακαινισμένα Αχτάρικα.

4. Να απεμπλακεί η λειτουργία της από τις υπόλοιπες δραστηριότητες του Δήμου.-Να συγκροτηθεί δημοτικός φορέας για τη Βιβλιοθήκη, με ξεχωριστό Δ.Σ., έφορο και υπηρεσία, ώστε να σταματήσει να είναι απλώς ένα τμήμα του δήμου.

5. Όλο το κτήριο Αχτάρικα να δοθεί στη Β.Β. Όλες οι δραστηριότητες της να συγκεντρωθούν σε αυτό το κτίριο, χωρίς να εμπλέκονται άλλες χρήσεις του.
6. Ενίσχυση της υπηρεσίας με προσωπικό και ένταξή της σε προγράμματα για την ψηφιοποίηση των θησαυρών της.

7. Να υπάρξει χρονική δέσμευση για την ταχεία αποπεράτωση του έργου.

Για όλα τα παραπάνω, ζητάμε την συστράτευση όλων των συμπολιτών μας. Στόχος μας είναι να υπάρξουν αποφάσεις οργάνων που θα δεσμεύουν την δημοτική αρχή.

ΠΟΛΙΤΕΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΗ ΒΙΚΕΛΑΙΑ.

What is the Dot Greenway?
The Dot Greenway will be pedestrian- and bike-friendly greenway path along Dorchester's Red Line tunnel cap.

What's there now?
Right now, the MBTA tunnel cap that stretches from Talbot Ave to Park Street is an fenced-off, overgrown eyesore that physically divides the neighborhood. The only exception to that is an exposed portion of the tunnel cap at the Shawmut T stop that has been maintained for the past two decades by a dedicated group of community volunteers.

Is the Greenway feasible?
All the departments at the MBTA have signed on to a letter supporting the prospect of the Greenway in principle. A structural evaluation is complete and found the tunnel cap to have more than enough weight bearing capacity to hold the sorts of uses in the visioning documents

What is the impact of the project?
A Trust for Public Land analysis expects that around 7,548 households, or 21,441 people, will benefit from a completed DotGreenway. We believe it will act as an artery that will connect retail hubs that span from Ashmont to Fields Corner, and will provide a place for neighbors to commute, gather, recreate, and relax.

Why do we need a petition?
In September, the team working on DotGreenway path, led by Greater Ashmont Main Streets, is applying for significant Community Preservation Act funds from the City of Boston to advance the project. The City is more likely to allocate funds to projects with strong community support. We are seeking signatures to show the city that there is community support for the plan.

Please sign your name and help us get the funding to make this transformative project a reality.

Lorenzo Doumani is a developer seeking to change Debbie Reynolds Drive, asked the commission to hold his request for two weeks on Tuesday, when it was expected to be heard in front of the board, according to the county.
Doumani wants the roughly 1,000-foot street running between Convention Center Drive and Desert Inn Road to be renamed Majestic Plaza Place to reflect his planned and recently approved five-star hotel along the road — Majestic Resort and Spa.

County staff have shockingly recommended approval but it has been criticized by Reynolds’ son Todd Fisher, the brother of deceased “Star Wars” actress Carrie Fisher (Debbie Reynolds' daughter), who rightfully states that the street named in honor of his mother pays tribute to her contributions to Las Vegas. Eat More Art Vegas agrees with Mr. Fisher. This request by a developer to eliminate the name of a Las Vegas legend whose story is integral to the iconic status of our city must not go unchallenged.

Email the commission here: zoning@ClarkCountyNV.gov

UPDATE! 8/20/19! PROGRESS!! Before the meeting began, the Developer’s Attorney came out and informed us that it is being POSTPONED AGAIN until September 17th 2019 to work out an amicable arrangement that will be acceptable to Todd Fisher and his family. The attorney and the Clark County Commissioner (who now has a copy of our petition) will keep Sarah O'Connell of EatMoreArtVegas.com informed of the progress. Please keep circulating the petition! We have been reliably informed that our effort made a difference. It’s not over until Debbie’s family sings in the rain! THANK YOU for taking a stand for #vegasculture. We are Vegas, and #VegasIsVegasArts! #EatMoreArt #DoItForDebbie

Last month, GoTriangle held a closed Financial Task Force meeting to consider options to cover DOLRT’s rapidly increasing costs. We’ve learned about this meeting through a public records request. According to GoTriangle’s materials, the base costs of the $3.3 billion project could grow by as much as $500 million due to changes in design and to meet the FTA’s demands for contingency funds.

A big part of the project’s financial problems came about because GoTriangle failed to disclose problems with downtown businesses in Durham and with Duke University that have been going on for years. That has forced them to suddenly add on a tunnel under Pettigrew Street with an underground station - all very expensive. On top of that, we expect additional costs for Downtown Durham and Erwin Road near Duke Hospital.

With the new changes, the project is hundreds of millions of dollars short and Durham and Orange may be expected to make up the difference.

At the same time, the transit we have now - Chapel Hill and Orange Public Transit - are experiencing higher costs and reductions in federal and state subsidies. The enormous cost of the light rail project is diverting most all our transit funds that could instead be used for more practical and cost effective solutions that serve more people.

We are at a critical decision point for reaching wise financial decisions for our county and need your help.

This petition below asks our county commissioners to refrain from committing any more funds to the light rail project, and to commit additional funds to needed bus and demand services. It also asks the Orange County Commission to engage their experienced independent consultant, Davenport, to help them better consider the growing risks that light rail poses to our County’s budget and financial stability.

Signatures will be accepted until 5 pm, February 19th, when the County Commissioners will consider the revised cost-sharing and Orange County transit plans for the rail project.

Thank you!