|
Louisville Coalition of Neighborhoods
Advocacy Committee
Minutes
September 26, 2002
Present: Co-Chairs Emily Boone and John Baker, Tim Chilton, Stephen
Tipton, Michael Baugh, Doug Lowry, Patricia Germany.
Issues Discussed and tabled for further Action:
1. Health Care - D. Lowry will write statement around health
care availability and quality of life indicators. Revisit on 10/16.
Some resources suggested by David Silverman:
http://peoplesagenda.org/environment,_health,_human_services.htm
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cio/emaps/index.cfm
http://www.health.gov/healthypeople
http://www.redefiningprogress.org/publications/pdf/measure_qol.pdf
2. Land Use (sub-committee), importance of Neighborhood Plans
(Mary Garry), development moratorium, and development
moratorium/Village Form District for new development (Stephen Tipton)
were discussed. This is a large issue tabled for addition input and
discussion. Committee feels education about and enforcement of
neighborhood plans is an important issue.
Additional information received too late for discussion but include
here: Friendly Amendment from David Silverman to S. Tipton's
proposal.
Suggested modification:
Amended: THAT WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE THAT ALL NEW development and rehabilitation be based on a Village Form Neighborhood with all
infrastructure in place and within walking distance (parks,
playgrounds, stores, bus stops, postal services.) and conform to
Sustainable, Renewably Based Design, Development and Construction
Practices Guidelines (As defined, at a minimum, by the American
Institutes for Architects (AIA) Environmental Committee Standards,
the Sustainable Building Industry Council (SBIC) Standards and the
American Planning Association (APA) Planning Guide for
Sustainability), These Guidelines are to be incorporated into
Neighborhood Plans and developed, reviewed and approved by
Neighborhood Sustainable Development Councils (As proposed and
referred from Advocacy Committee:
http://louisvilleneighborhoods.org/Advocacy-Draft%20Sustainable%20Development%20Council%20v1.0.doc )
References: http://www.planning.org/policyguides/sustainability.htm
http://www.sbicouncil.org/store/software.php
http://www.aia.org/pia/cote
Rationale: The Village Form Neighborhood is a good "New Urbanism"
approach but falls far short of sustainable development needs on it's
own. That is why AIA, APA, SBIC, Lawrence Livermore Lab and others
have developed Sustainable Development Guidelines such as those
above. Similarly, the other Forms as now developed for Jefferson
County do not have much teeth, but by using the moratorium
(neighborhoods/community vetoes) proposals combined with the pro-
active neighborhood democracy of the neighborhood sustainable
development districts, these approaches to community development can
gain both teeth and participatory democratic support. The COMBINATION
of New Urbanism and Sustainable Development with Neighborhood
Democracy is a powerful three-pronged approach that might get things
done.
It's important to note that when sustainable development approaches
such as these are combined, the resulting development provides
greater value and livability to residents, is more profitable to
developers, and benefits the larger community in a variety of
measurable ways, from workforce development (sustainable
livelihoods), to lower energy bills and consumption, to cleaner air
and water to safer streets.
Example: Village Homes, built over 20 years ago, is one of many
maturing sustainable development communities. Houses are solar, bike
paths and environmentally sound, edible landscaping run throughout
the development. Compared to neighboring subdivisions, Village Homes
houses are valued at 20% more than neighboring subdivision houses
built at comparable cost. Why? Because the quality of life is
measurably better, energy costs are much lower, and families love it.
And what developer, realtor, or homeowner wouldn't want a home that
appreciates and sells at 20% more than conventional homes, has lower
utility bills, but doesn't cost more to build? One of the lessons of
this example is that sustainable development standards can bring
great advantage to developers, and have the potential to make
neighborhoods and developers into development allies.
References: http://www.ecocomposite.org/building/villagehomes.htm
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid209.php
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/land_use/models/village_homes.html
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/landuse/village.shtml
http://www.arch.psu.edu:16080/hamercenter/resources/VillageHomes.pdf
3. Educational Forums: Tabled to 10/16. (Please see
louisvilleneighborhoods.org web site for background information on
forums under development, in particular:
http://louisvilleneighborhoods.org/neighborhood_forums.htm and
http://louisvilleneighborhoods.org/Community_Communications_Working_Gr
oup.htm )
Issues discussed and recommended action:
1. Voting: That LCON states and publicly supports trying to get
as many people registered and out to vote as possible, no matter what
party or candidate they support. Committee recommends Board pass on
to the membership for discussion and approval. D. Silverman offers
the following (again, received too late to discuss). Suggested action
step: Invite NAACP voter registration project staff to inform LCON
participants on how to quickly organize or support voter registration
drives in their neighborhoods. NAACP Voter Empowerment Project
http://www.louisville-naacp.org
2. Membership Meetings: That LCON meeting be rotated throughout
the whole Metro Louisville area, rather than be held in one place in
downtown Louisville. Recommendation for Board to bring before the
membership for discussion and vote.
3. Amendment to Kentucky Constitution: Committee requested that
M. Baugh provide information to the LCON membership via the list
serve regarding an amendment that impacts corporations.
This information can be found on the
http://louisvilleneighbrohoods.org site at
http://louisvilleneighborhoods.org/steathglobalization.htm
Related links forwarded by David Silverman:
Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy http://www.poclad.org
History of State Constitutions and Corporate Charters:
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/TCoBeij.html
4. Advocacy Survey: Committee suggests a check mark (agree,
disagree) format for survey. Recommendation to Board to obtain
member input for changes. (please note that survey/poll yes-no option
via web site exists now - please contact David Silverman for more
information)
5. Advocacy Budget: Recommendation that meeting room space line
($400) be deleted and photocopying line be increased to $150.
Next Meeting - Wednesday, October 16th, 6:30PM, California Community
Center, 1600 W. Saint Catherine. Take 15th Street south from
Broadway and turn left on St. Catherine.
|
