August 2016 Issue #7
BTV City Council Accelerates Mall Redevelopment, Approves Motion to Bypass Ordinance Committee Councillors Paul, Shannon, and Others Exploit Loophole to Set a Dangerous Precedent for Downtown Development By the time a visibly angry Max Tracy furrowed his eyebrows at his fellow City Councillors on the evening of July 11th, the developer class of Burlington had already made their move to stifle any remaining opposition to their plans. In an unusually
aggressive push, the City Council was preparing to accelerate their timeline for the approval of changes to downtown zoning regulations designed to allow redevelopment of the Burlington Town Center, commonly known as the Church Street Mall.
The accelerated timeframe came in the form of a motion by City Councillor Karen Paul (Ward 6) that would place the proposed zoning changes before the Council during a
public hearing as soon at September 12th, much sooner than had been anticipated. The motion would also effectively nullify any decision made by the Ordinance Committee which had been expected to reject the zoning change at the end of their six scheduled meetings.
"Abandoning Due Diligence" The new schedule is already widely regarded to be a continuation of Burlington Democrats and the Weinberger administration’s prioritizing of developer plans over the needs of Burlingtonians for affordable housing and responsible city planning, while unapologetically trampling over vetting and approval processes. “I feel like we’re upending our process here” said City Councillor Selene Colburn (Eastern District) as she prepared to vote
against the motion fo a rushed approval process. “We’re looking at just a matter of a few weeks for [the Planning Commission] to do what cannot be a comparably thorough review of any proposed ordinances of this magnitude... I’m concerned that we’re upending our process such a degree that we would be abandoning due diligence.” Along with the Coalition for a Livable City, many Burlington residents have accused the Weinberger administration and other city leaders of engaging in “spot zoning”, the process of changing zoning laws and regulations to fit the specific needs of a single developer or project. Considered illegal in many states and prohibited by the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act of 1921, the amendment of zoning regulations for a single parcel of land for different a land use characterization than the surrounding district is considered spot zoning.
“I don’t see how this isn’t spot zoning,” said Councillor Tracy as the discussion intensified, “if we’re defining the ordinance timeline, or at least the the timeline for the approval of the ordinance based on the needs of one particular developer. I find that very troubling,” he said. “There’s a whole host of concerns that I have that the Planning Commission, despite their hard work, has been unable to address. There are other issues [as well] such as the warning of meetings and the posting of documents that still remain undealt with in the context of the proper procedure.”
Stifling the Dissent Following a brief discussion on available dates for meetings and work sessions,Councillor Max Tracy came to a sudden realization of the extent to which the Weinberger administration was willing
to go for Burlington’s developer class. Directing his question to City Attorney Eileen Blackwood, Tracy asked “If we refer it to the Ordinance Committee, would the Ordinance Committee then have to vote it out [to the full Council]?” Blackwood offered only an abrupt and perplexing response, “No.” When asked “Why not?” by Tracy, Blackwood explained that the motion to accelerate and diffuse the approval and vetting process also introduced language that would effectively and irrevocably nullify any decision or vote made by the skeptical Ordinance Committee comprised of Councillors Tracy, Bushor, and Wright. The opposition to rampant development was dead in the water. “Every other ordinance that’s come to the Ordinance Committee -- it’s been required that the Ordinance Committee vote it out [to the full Council] by the majority of that Committee -- if the Ordinance Committee hasn’t voted that out… then the ordinance dies there.
How is this different?” said Tracy. “I’ve been on the Council for four years now, I can’t think of an example when we’ve referred something to the Ordinance Committee and then it came back [to the full Council] from the Ordinance Committee without an affirmative vote…” Blackwood responded coldly, “I don’t know of an example, I just know what the rules allow. Just because it’s never happened, doesn’t mean you can’t do it.” At this, Tracy flared with visible anger. “I feel like we’re sort of ad-libbing process here tonight. Not only have we gone against the normal process of having the Planning Commission complete their work before dealing with it as a first reading on the City Council -- we’ve gone against that -- but now we’re saying we want to go against the normal procedure which is to refer items to the Ordinance Committee for further
deliberation without neccessarily a time certain report-back. And now, from what I’m hearing, is that regardless of whether we’re done with our work by the meeting [scheduled] for the 15th, we will regardless have to deal with that matter on the 15th… whether or not the Ordinance Committee has voted it out [to the full Council]. I can’t think of any precedent -- I don’t know if the other councillors can -- where something has gone to the Ordinance Committee, not received an affirmative action from that Committee, and then been dealt with by the full Council. So I think that that’s a real problem with the process as an Ordinance Committee member… we aren’t following real process” he said, drawing applause from members of the public as he excoriated his fellow councillors for exclusionary tactics to bring the accelerated timeline to the Council. “It’s really upsetting that that’s the way this has gone down.”
Tracy then struck directly at the heart of what Burlington residents and opposition organizations have been saying for months, “This is not an ideal timeframe and the reason it’s not an ideal timeframe -- as I’ve said before -- is that this is Don Sinex’s timeline. This is not the timeline for the City of Burlington. This is not the timeline the people want. This is not the timeline of the Planning Commission.”
Former City Council President Joan Shannon responded flatly, “I don’t see this as a divergence from our normal process,” before condescendingly insisting that bypassing the Ordinance Committee and accelerating the approval and vetting process for the mall redevelopment was actually more democratic for the City of Burlington. “I don’t see this as a less thorough and engaged process… my preference would really be to keep [the ordinance decision] within [the full Council] for the entire deliberation, but our Council rules allow for a minority of this body to prevent that from happening… that is the prerogative of the minority,” she said. The repeated use of “the minority” in reference to the Ordinance Committee -- a body specifically formed by the Burlington City Council to vet and regulate ordinance changes -- is a slippery form of mental
gymnastics meant to simultaneously undermine due process within city government as well as wholly ignore the droves of people who continue to oppose the unchecked development philosophy of Burlington Democrats and the Weinberger administration. The motion to accelerate the timeline passed by a 7-3 margin with only Tracy, Colburn, and Gianonni voting in opposition.
Burlingtonians Respond to Development Plans The proposed change to downtown Burlington’s zoning regulations has drawn fire from a variety of Burlington residents in the months since developer Don Sinex has filed plans and paperwork for a towering fourteen story structure. The colossal 160 foot redevelopment plan described as “a likely Trojan Horse for other apartment blocks [in Burlington]” has been regularly criticized for expanding beyond both human scale for a walkable city as well being wholly out of character with the rest of Burlington’s downtown. “I feel like this development is really misguided and it’s struck in a mentality of the 1950’s” said Matthew Ennis of Winooski during the Public Forum period before the July 11th City Council. “First of all, fourteen stories is way out of proportion for this city -- It
would just change the face of this city, and I think that’s wrong.” Commuting into the Burlington by bicycle since 1985, Ennis also commented on the worsening of downtown traffic conditions possibly created by the project. “If you put fourteen story towers downtown and you have all these people living there, and you have more parking spaces, and you extend the Southern Connector -- you’re just bringing more cars downtown.” Others who spoke during the Public Forum drew attention to the apparent lack of consideration for local businesses on the part of designers and architects involved in the project. Janet Carscooden, a transplant from Toronto noted the empty bays within architecture drawings of the proposed mall that featured signs in the windows suggesting "Put your AMC Theater Here" and "Put your Hard Rock Cafe Here." "We
already have a theater in town! Merrill's Roxy! This would put him out of business," she said in exasperation.
Addressing the Council, Burlington resident Richard Harendeen expressed the frustration with the City's ongoing attempts to wrap unwanted development in a patina of false community engagement; paraphrasing the Council's approach as "Block the sky with concrete, run a contest
for public art on the facades -- say on the them of landscape, lakes, and mountains. Burlington says, we'd like the real thing." Longtime Burlington resident and community organizer Bea Bookchin was among the last to speak about the plans for redevelopment of the mall site during the Public Forum. “I understand you want to grow the city and you want to increase the amount of business coming into the city… but putting fourteen story buildings into downtown is not the way to grow the city,” she said. “[If you allow] a bunch of fourteen story buildings the tourists are going to stop coming and it’s going to end up being worse for business,” she continued. “And as you approach a city like Albany that has a hundred-thousand people in it, [Burlington] begins to look like Albany -- and nobody goes there. So, we don’t need fourteen story buildings to accomplish everything we want
to accomplish. We have to keep [Burlington] to the correct size.�
Contested Ground, Deep Wounds The redevelopment of the Burlington Town Center is hardly the first (or last) instance of the City steamrolling over popular dissent in the name of economic growth and development. With the hope of securing
federal funds the city implemented the Champlain Street Urban Renewal project in the 1950s and 60s. The plan was to take Burlington’s Little Italy -- a working class neighborhood that ran from Pearl Street southward along Battery Street to College Street and convert it into a profitable district of office buildings and condominiums. A bitter Eminent Domain fight ensued, resulting in the destruction and seizure of the entire neighborhood. Two city streets were cut in half when construction began on the site of what is now the Burlington Town Center. Today, the only sign of the vibrant neighborhood that was wiped out is a small commemorative plaque at the edge of Battery Park. It was installed just a few years ago with little appreciation for irony by the Weinberger administration. The Burlington City Council is expected to hold a final vote on the issue on September 12th, 2016. H