Council turns deaf ear to public, embraces
Grove Park
By Rebecca Sulock
Asheville, North Carolina, Sept. 17 (AGR)— On Tuesday
evening, City Council passed a motion 6 to 1 granting the Grove Park
Inn the option to purchase six-tenths of an acre in the heart of downtown
Asheville. Grove Park Inn will now have until the summer of 2004 to
present a building design to city council, who will then vote on whether
to sell the property.
“This is a monumental decision that will have a lasting impact
on Asheville,” said Mayor Charles Worley. City Council made the
decision despite the majority of public comments opposing the project
and the continued confusion surrounding its details.
Councilwoman Holly Jones cast the lone dissenting vote, saying that
the process by which the agreement had been made had “been too
hasty,” with public involvement “less than adequate.”
City staff had amended the motion to include a stricter height restriction
on any structure to be built, along with land-use restrictions for the
area which would be above an underground parking garage, part of GPI’s
proposal.
Councilman Brian Peterson proposed still-stricter height regulations,
saying “nothing should rise higher than the gargoyles” on
top of the Jackson building, which seem to “look down on Pack Square.”
The amendment knocked a full story off the building’s design.
Peterson also amended the motion to include language stipulating that
no commercial structures could be built on the portion of the land GPI
depicts as public green space in its tentative design plans.
The amendment passed 6 to 1, with Councilman Joe Dunn dissenting.
Dunn expressed repeated concern that too many regulations and restrictions
would chase off GPI investment. The amendments were made that afternoon,
he said, and that GPI did not have enough time to review them. “I’m
going to take his [GPI attorney and former Asheville mayor Louis Bissette]
side here. They’re trying to help us. What about giving them a
fair shake?”
Peterson said that the public’s concerns about the future building’s
height were not new, and had been the subject of extensive debate at
previous Council meetings.
Several council members admitted that the process, particularly involving
public opinion and dissemination of specific information regarding GPI’s
proposal, had been severely flawed. Jones wondered why a model hadn’t
been constructed, as in the case of the construction of Pack Place,
to demonstrate what the property would look like with the new GPI building.
Other councilmen seemed tired of the public debate.
“We’ve had public hearing after public hearing,” said
Dunn, further stating that he had learned all he needed to from the
public’s comments.
“Joe Dunn’s ready to make the motion,” he said, while
Jones and Bellamy protested, requesting further questioning of GPI’s
attorneys and staff.
“The public process has been pretty thorough,” said Mayor
Worley.
The number of questions posed by Asheville residents attending the meeting
seemed to contradict that idea. Many of those who spoke indicated that
this was their first city council meeting, and their strong feelings
impelled them to attend and speak their concerns. Some residents wondered
aloud as to whether the deal had already been made.
“This whole thing’s a formality anyway,” said Fred English,
who lives in Haw Creek. “The agreement’s already been signed.
This thing’s been going on for years,” he said.
“We need to be concerned about the long-term preservation of this
city,” said Brady Preyss, a substitute teacher/kayaker and an Asheville
resident. “Once you take away green space, it is tough to get it
back.”
“I was all for it until today, when I actually went over and looked
at the space,” said Robert Simon, another resident. Others present
shared reservations that a building on the site would be out-of-scale
with other structures surrounding the square, and would wall off the
park proposed by the Pack Square Conservancy.
“We’re about to lose our soul if we start walling in our public
spaces,” said Mary Jo Brezny.
Planning and Development director Scott Shuford said the idea was to
create a boundary that defines the edge of the park, as proposed by
Urban Design Associates, the design firm consulted by the Conservancy.
Several citizens expressed apprehension about GPI’s reputation
for dealing with historic properties [the controversy surrounding the
Battle and Bynum Houses] and the wages and quality of life it provides
for its workers.
“I can’t believe what I heard about people defaming the company,”
Bissette said, repeatedly touting the deal as a “win-win situation”
for both the Inn and the City.
Council listened to public comments for over an hour. Towards the end
of the meeting, Dunn dismissed opponents’ concerns as made by people
“fearful of change,” saying “this is not gonna be Armageddon.”
“This is a city, not a forest,” Councilman Carl Mumpower said
as part of his closing remarks, a statement that seemed to refer to
earlier concerns brought up by local activist Leah Karpen. Imploring
Council to preserve the trees on the existing public green space, Karpen
quoted poet Robert Frost.
Peterson expressed frustration with staff for “always presenting
projects as 100 percent good, and not presenting the downside of things.”
He felt that both proponents and opponents of the project presented
only one side of the spectrum, which made decision-making and compromise
difficult.
Peterson supported the motion, on grounds that he would prefer people
to move into the downtown area, rather than build large, expensive homes
on the tops of the surrounding mountains. “I’d rather preserve
the views of the mountains than the views of the courthouse,” he
said.
“It is rare that city council has the opportunity to make monumental
decisions,” said Worley, adding his support for the motion. Worley
said it was good to have a local developer for the property, while acknowledging
that GPI is owned by the Sammons Corporation out of Dallas, Texas.
After a reappraisal, the price of the property increased from $650,000
to $702,000. City staff estimated the new building would net approximately
$150,000 in property tax revenue for the city each year.
WNC acts up against the WTO
Sept. 15-- Members of the Asheville Guerilla Arts Project
(A GAP) hit the streets and malls of Asheville this past weekend. On
Sat., Sept. 13, in coordination with the WTO Day of Action, finely dressed
guerilla artists strolled through the streets of downtown Asheville
informing tourists and locals alike that the sidewalks had now been
privatized by the WTO and all pedestrians must now pay a sidewalk toll
or face arrest.
Some pedestrians were simply confused about why the sidewalks were now
charging a toll, and decided they would rather walk around the block
than pay the entrance fees (which for the day entail taking a free temporary
pass full of info about the WTO).
A GAP then went on to two downtown businesses asking such questions
as: “Why aren’t you charging for water?” and “Why
are you paying your workers so much?” The the badge-toting “WTO
Trade Enforcement Officers”then explained to the businesses and
folks on the street that what’s good for profit is good for the
people.
Sunday’s theatre matinee took place in the Asheville Mall. As two
unsuspecting hipsters were walking through the mall doing their daily
consumption exercises, a nearby WTO Trade Enforcement Officer called
in two military personnel to come sweep up the known terrorists. The
hipsters were dragged off, screaming such things as “Fight for
the earth, there is no second chance” and “Worker’s rights
for all.”
The Trade Enforcement Officer then proceeded onto the scene, shouting,
“You saw nothing! Question nothing! This has merely been another
random kidnapping of human rights by the WTO. Thank you! Keep shopping!”
The dozens of nearby shoppers froze — some in fear, some in wonderment.
But regardless, A GAP feels they were successful in at least one manner:
for two minutes, dozens of people stopped shopping in the mall; they
stopped talking about fall colors, and they had to think about a world
outside of themselves.
Source: A GAP press release
