Upcoming Public Meetings on Land Use Code, March 1-5

You-all are invited to learn more about metro Louisville's new land use code. 

There will be a public presentation on March 3 at 7 p.m. and East Government Center in Middletown, another presentation on March 5 at 2 p.m. at the APCB office on Barrett Avenue, and another presentation at the South Government Center but I don't have the date or time. 

Call the Planning Commission at 574-6230 for details. 

In addition, GLTV (channel 25) will present a 3 hour program at 7 p.m. Saturday March 1 and again on Sunday.

Go to the GLTV website at www.louky.org for the Sunday time. 

Theresa Stanley

Working Group Background and Contacts:  

To see the meeting summary by co-convener Theresa Stanley and individual comments and ideas from the meeting, please take a look at the column to the left.

Take a look! Over 100 Brainstormed Metro Area Reforms : Notes from January Meeting of Citizens Planning and Land Use Working Group v.1.2..doc

Second Meeting: 2-17-03 meeting Cancelled due to snow and reorganization - please check back soon for the next meeting date.

Times and Dates TBA - Check Back Soon or contact the conveners below for more information

First meeting was : 6:30 PM Thursday, January 29, 2003

The subcommittee met on 1/29/03 at the Clifton Center.  Following is the summary of this meeting prepared by Theresa Stanley, Chair. Although LCON is taking the lead in this effect we want to ensure broad participation and involvement.  Individuals and organizational representatives are welcome.
John Baker, Clifton Community Council

This is intended to be an open working group for individuals, neighborhoods and community groups to develop policy proposals and learn from each other. (This is not intended to be simply a group or sub-committee "under" any particular organization or coalition, and based on that understanding, this notice is being put forward for community members).

 This first meeting will be organizational and idea-generating - a chance to compile, clarify, resolve and whatever else the attendees deem important to neighborhoods. 

Some items and comments suggested prior to the first meeting for the agenda:

"Planning Commission and BOZA need to seriously review and take into consideration neighborhood plans when they make decisions."

"The neighborhood plans, are supposed to hold some weight, in developing neighborhoods. They need to do be used for what they were intended."

"Ways to develop truly sustainable neighborhood plans which local government and business will be accountable to; that are not only based in the visions of the neighborhoods for the present and long term future, but also are economical, ecological and equitable for neighborhood residents, the region, and the planet."

"Metro and regional government and business accountability to neighborhoods plans, zoning and other land use guidelines"

"Neighborhood education and planning for sustainable development"

For more information or to put an item or two on the agenda, contact:

 Theresa Stanley, 412-9055 or email at bradneighbor@cs.comor Rachel Grimes, rachel@fishin.comFor additional information, contact John Baker, advocacy group, johnbaker@bellsouth.net

1)       Metro Council Members could dedicate their $25,000 “community funds” for use by neighborhoods to pay for experts and attorneys as needed for neighborhood plans or particular issues. Source: DS

2)       Metro Council Members could pool their available funds to pay attorneys, experts, architects, engineers, etc for all neighborhood groups to access, not just their own Council district. Source: DS

3)       While participants did not discuss LCDC directly, there was some consideration of the history of Community Design Centers (Louisville’s is the smallest in the US), which emerged to serve communities’ needs, often in conflict with local governments, developers,, landlords, etc., as well as to advance community based sustainable development. We should consider ways to support similar efforts to base planners, architects and sustainable development experts directly with neighborhoods groups, and to fund such expertise and legal support from funds which are also independent of city and corporate donors. Source: DS

4)       Go for financing and technical expertise from outside the area to keep or balance our independence, and directly from neighbors and neighborhoods business, for the same reason Source: DS

5)       One function of neighborhood groups and funded experts should be education and change of practice for developers contractors, planners, neighborhoods and local elected officials on sustainable neighborhoods practices, not simply opposition to particular projects. Source: DS

6)       Neighborhood groups also need to work with and learn about the development process from developers and experts in the field Source: DS

7)       Planning Commission should have staff meetings with neighborhoods, in the neighborhoods, on a regular basis Source: DS

8)       Planning commission staff should meet with neighborhoods and developers BEFORE planning begins on projects Source: DS

9)       Neighborhoods should have a way of rating development projects and providing a “green seal” of approval on developments that meet their standards (note- Urban Ecology in Oakland has been doing this for a number of years with their Sustainable Development rating process.  Adena is arranging for some of them to visit and share their process later this year). Source: DS

10)    Neighborhood plans need to move into the 21^st century, and the planning ordinance and process be reconceived as a sustainable development process, creating actionable and enforceable sustainable neighborhoods plans that move neighborhoods towards actual renewable resource and sustainable livelihoods infrastructure Source: DS

11)    There was an observation that there is a lack of support between neighborhood organizations, in part because we lack of knowledge, in part because some neighborhoods leadership does not support people acting or talking with each other on issues. So one reform area is for neighborhood coalitions to take on real issues and democracy, and stop blocking such action, while neighborhoods should communicate and act directly, not be pressured to join or wait for permission from agencies or coalitions or funders in order to talk with each other and act. Source: DS

12)    Probably the organizations with the communities with the greatest need for learning about  the experiences of neighborhoods and the tools of sustainable neighborhoods planning are the small cities in the county and the larger region. At the same time, thy may have a bit to teach neighborhoods and unincorporated areas about self – governance. How do we build regional links to people in the communities around us? Source: DS

13)    This may be full of stereotypes, but several people voiced these thoughts later: Some of these small cities and regional communities are pretty autocratic and parochial, and so far recent experience is that their leadeship is pretty much interested in keeping people quiet about issues while they pursue more or less “good ol’ boy” strategies and PR for working around troublesome citizens or long term community needs in favor of short term development and pretty unsustainable infrastructure. On the other hand, there is a wealth of experience there, and a growing recognition of the need for other approaches that don’t result in more future catastrophes like the flooded homes of the south end of Jefferson Co. or the disastrous water quality problems of New Albany, etc. by people who think they’re escaping the problems of the city to more or less gated communities, only to discover they brought the same thinking and problems with them. This may be even more true of the wealthy cities of eastern Jefferson County, which in addition to possible gated community and escapist mentalities, have a lot of corporate wealth and “leadership influence” to throw around. Ways to dispute and resolve these stereotypes and concerns welcome J . Source: DS

14)     Similarly, there was a general recognition of the ways in which advocacy by and for neighborhoods was being blocked across the county, and strong suggestions put forward to work with attorneys, coalitions, and neighbors who are interested in issues and democratic process, not in PR or good old boy type approaches.  Hank Graddy and Tom Fitzgerald were two attorneys suggested. Source: DS

15)    Lack of analysis. For the most part, people don’t know enough of other neighborhoods stories, or of how things are done elsewhere, or of what the root causes of the development process here are. It was suggested that we join in  sponsoring community education and a “community memory bank” for these stories and analyses. (see louisvilleneighborhoods.org,, the  Louisville Ideas Bank and louky.com for a start) Source: DS

16)    Similarly, there was some discussion of local power structure analysis, understanding the who’s - who and the relationships between institutional actors, financial and development agencies, realtors, local politicians, campaign contributions and developers, etc., and how the deals of the development process have evolved over time, so as to intervene in the process effectively.  A data-base for this process was proposed.  Several are under development.  Source: DS

17)    Due process changes are needed NOW: the ‘ex parte” limitations on Council members needs to be changed if it means they can’t or won’t talk with and advocate for their constituents. Right now constituents are excluded from the process.  This is probably something to be approached simultaneously: State legislature, local ordinance, in the courts and by political organizing with Council members, etc. Source: DS

18)     Due process reforms need to be put in place so that such communication and hearings happen well before the development process begins, rather than after developers have invested  so much money in land, planning and financing that they can’t back down in any significant way. Source: DS

19)    The issue of Council members and local government liability needs to be addressed and resolved. This was one of the reasons for the inability of the Council to act in the past few months, in that they were scared to act after briefings by David Banks, according to Tina Ward Pugh (apocryphal - is this true?). Source: DS

20)    Participants are urged to look at the reforms under consideration by the Neighborhoods Advocacy Group ( See http://louisvilleneighborhoods.org - titles are appended to this, go to the web site to see more complete versions) Source: DS

21)    Participants were encouraged to read the Jan 5 Courier-Journal article re: Planning Commission Staff Authority to Change Plans Source: DS

22)    There was a general concern that planning staff have no authority to speak or act for neighborhoods for  sustainable development Source: DS

23)     Planning staff and commissioners should be educated in a formal way on what sustainable neighborhood development is. Source: DS

24)    Planning staff with experience and education in neighborhood sustainable development should be hired. Source: DS

25)    The planning staff currently has no architect or engineers on staff – Architects and engineers with sustainable neighborhoods, democratic process and ecological design experience should be hired. Source: DS

26)    Because the planning staff and commissioners are not competent to evaluate calculations and other technical analyses, they are letting all sorts of errors and “fudging” slip through. Calculations should be checked by qualified independent engineers, architects, etc. before going to hearings. The results of the analysis should be available to neighborhoods 14 days or more before the hearings for their own review. If calculations are not checked and sent to neighborhoods for review with sufficient lead time, they should not be allowed to get to the common hearing floor. Source: DS

27)    Neighborhood moratorium ordinance needs to be strengthened (missing that note – can someone specify?) Source: DS

28)    There needs to be serious consideration of the proposal now being circulated for a general moratorium on all new development (unless it conforms to both village form and sustainable development criteria as for instance in the APA sustainability guidelines) (see http://louisvilleneighborhoods.org ) Given that the region is already hugely overbuilt (10:1 by some estimates), this is a reasonable proposal to encourage re-use. It is also politically interesting, in that it is not only a negative (stop building unsustainably) but also represents a moderate, positive and clear response to a system out of control (village form, sustainability and other criteria).  As a strong statement by neighborhoods, it might get attention. Source: DS

29)    Private sector solutions: Alternatively, those businesses and developers that are interested in ”doing it right” should be encouraged to come up with creative, sustainable solutions, and neighborhoods should support creation of local development markets that are consistent with sustainable neighborhood development criteria.Source: DS

30)    There was some discussion of “what is sustainable” and several resources were suggested, including the Adena Institute and Communicas Links Pages (http://adenainstitute.org and http://communicas.org ) The Adena Institute links page and engine will be updated soon to include a comprehensive sustainable neighborhoods development engine, and partnering is underway to develop an integrated sustainable community systems planner database in the next few months. Important other resources which were noted include Communities by Choice, the Sustainable Communities Network (which gave birth to and houses the Smart Growth Network) and ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. All have models and ordinances at a variety of scales applicable to Louisville. Source: DS

31)     The community design center or similar resources need to be engaged along with other expertise here to not only do neighborhood plans that are “NIMBY” or preservationist, but really address how we can move towards sustainability here. Source: DS

32)    Given the current rush by Walmart and other “big box” developers to get their plans approved by the commission and Council before the beginning of Cornerstone 2020 implementation in March, a moratorium, re-consideration and review of such rushed approvals to make sure they really serve the community should be put in place. Source: DS

33)    Real estate and property valuation and market analysis by the private sector and local land acquisition agencies like LDA doesn’t appear to consider the sustainable agriculture, energy, biotic architecture, “living machines,” industrial and neighborhood ecology, ecosystems services or other contributions of land and ecology in production or supported by infrastructure development that contributes to such production in sustainable ways. Neighborhoods should consider ways to value property in neighborhood plans in ways which reflect this sort of valuation and build the neighborhood on sustainable property value.  More discussion afterwards on how to calculate actual neighborhoods real assets, renewable resource assets and financial assets as part of sustainable neighborhoods planning. Source: DS

34)    Neighborhoods should connect with the Kentucky Economic Justice Alliance and other statewide organizations that are looking at the changing tax and financing systems in the state to encourage more sustainable development and businesses in the state. We need to understand the finances that underlie developer decisions and be a part of analyzing and proposing financing alternatives that result in the sort of sustainable neighborhood development we want.

35)     This community needs to take on publicly the “election campaign contributions payoff system” that milks developers for contributions in order to get planning and zoning and other approval. “Publicly” means talking about it, educating about it organizing at the neighborhood and community – wide level about it,. documenting and analyzing it  and preparing reform campaigns that include state and local legislation, court challenges etc. Source: DS

36)    One of the reforms that needs to be put in place is the adoption of the APA ethics code, the APA sustainable development standards and other enforceable ethics and process codes for citizen boards and commission members as well as staff and Council members, and for their part, developers in their professional organizations. Source: DS

37)    One of those reforms should include forbidding Boards or commission members from arranging meetings or fundraising for election campaigns fundraising or other financial purposes, between developers, board and commission members and elected officials or candidates. Source: DS

38)    Neighborhoods meetings with developers need to be standard, and a part of the process. Source: DS

39)    Such meetings need to have teeth, that is, developers required to disclose information in depth Source: DS

40)    State legislation and local ordinances are both needed Source: DS

41)    We need to identify record and challenge some of the tax breaks developers are getting Source: DS

42)    On the positive side, we need to put in place progressive incentives such as the affordable development incentives the county has for low income housing, and apply that approach more broadly to sustainable neighborhood development criteria Source: DS

43)    We need to look at the Land Development Code in terms of incentives or hindrances to sustainable neighborhood development  Source: DS

44)    14-21 day notices of ALL hearings, filings, and ANY changes in plans needs to be in place in law and enforceable. If the notice has not been given to EVERYONE INVOLVED in appropriate and detailed and understandable fashion, then the process needs to simply stop.  No exceptions by commissioners or Council members who simply ignore notification requirements and vote anyway. Teeth to put a stop to that. Source: DS

45)    The neighborhoods office could be one locus of expertise, hiring sustainable development specialists, architects, planners and engineers to not only evaluate but advocate for neighborhoods. Source: DS

46)    This would be a change in the nature of the Neighborhoods office, back to it’s original function as an Advocacy office rather than how it has been defined for the last few years, as a “services” office. Source: DS

47)    Neighborhoods office should focus on the sustainability of infrastructure, not just it’s aesthetics, preservation or commercial viability Source: DS

48)    Meetings with developers and neighborhoods should have neighborhood staff, planning staff, etc present but not leading, all around a big table, before project planning gets underway Source: DS

49)    Neighborhood councils should be developed with approval over Council person decisions regarding development. Source: DS

50)    Louisville should adopt the “Green builder” approach successfully undertaken by other communities, partnering with sustainable designers, using green procurement standards and working to educate the homebuilders, contractors, developers, city staff and officials and neighborhoods together on how to plan and build (or democratically decide not to) green, sustainably, appropriately for the community. Source: DS

51)    Neighborhood businesses can be partners in keeping money in the neighborhood, buying local, and making sustainable economic development decisions. Local ownership to enhance neighborhood multiplier effects.  Business that builds sustainable neighborhood economies. Support for certain kinds of businesses that fit neighborhood needs should be central, not just more franchises and out of town ownership, etc. In some neighborhoods very basic neighborhoods businesses are needed.  In others, there’s just continuing overbuild for real estate speculation, etc, not neighborhood or regional market needs. The Sustainable Business Network in Louisville and similar associations can be contacted to explore this with. Source: DS

52)    Neighborhoods business associations should be engaged to help think through sustainable neighborhoods planning, economics and livelihoods that meet their and the neighborhoods development needs, supports neighborhood “buy local” as appropriate, and connects businesses with ways to transition to more sustainable markets and practice. Where they don’t exist, sustainable business associations should be developed. Source: DS

53)    Inventory of businesses in neighborhoods in terms of local vs. out of town ownership, types of infrastructure they contribute,  etc. Source: DS

54)    Neighborhoods can take advantage of developments in sustainable indicators and measures methods to create neighborhoods plans that are not based on the old “planning and zoning map” template but put long term visions and values in specific and measureable form. By looking at the connections between development, economics, environment and community equity and farness, a “living document” can be created that can be applied to a variety of planning and development situations across scales. These sorts of measures and stories can then be used as a basis for plan development that creates “meta data” for maps based in the sustainable values the community holds, rather than simply the inherited map and overlay information of standard mapping and planning approaches. Source: DS 

54)    How can the neighborhoods office be democratically responsive to, advocate for and support neighborhoods networking and learning from each other, a partner supporting neighborhood initiatives, not just an “intelligence” and PR system for the administration, not “gatekeeping” and stopping new neighborhoods ideas, watering them down or pre-empting lateral networks between neighborhoods, etc? Skepticism was expressed given the history so far. Source: DS

55)    Greater Louisville Inc. is clearly of the opinion that “there is no sprawl in Louisville” and is similarly committed to outmoded and myopic development paths. Neighborhoods need to partner with businesses, developers and associations that “get it.” GLI clearly doesn’t, and to spend much time with them, while they hold the strings of so much of the government is probably not a good investment of time and energy. Source: DS

56)    Given that attitude, as long as GLI runs the economic development policy and practice of the community while paying the Mayors salary, etc,, there is not much chance that the economic development agencies will be interested in real sustainable economic development. Source: DS

57)    What’s an alternative to the Chamber of Commerce controlling politics and government this way? What’s a “non-GLI’?

58)    Neighborhoods need to continue to organize networks like the regional south, east and city-wide  LINC neighborhoods networks, as well as regional networks, since the focus of sprawl is not simply the county, but the entire 23 county area that GLI is seeking to industrialize through all this build out and overbuilding. Relying on any “unified voice” neighborhoods coalition that’s not really democratic, tells neighborhoods what they’re allowed to do or talk about, doesn’t allow people to talk to each other and so on, is probably not a good idea. Many voices and talking to and supporting each other. Source: DS

59)    Louisville should start looking for “best practices” that actually work, that is that are genuinely sustainable, rather than those which merely represent “benchmarks” in particular areas, but which fail in others, and therefore aren’t really “best practices.” (such as economic development that pushes out local business, or traffic calming that actually increases congestion, or “community dialogues” that exclude key aspects of neighborhoods concerns). Source: DS

60)    Louisville should be looking and learning from international resources, not just “regional benchmarks” based on nearby cities which don’t really work but are convenient, Source: DS

61)    Louisville should be comparing itself with and learning from other communities, by including neighborhoods and green neighborhood development professionals in visiting and comparing best practices, and not just by send business and executive types from GLI who don’t have skills or perspectives in sustainable neighborhood development Source: DS

62)    The reforms advanced last legislative session  by Jim Wayne and others should be revisited and expanded at the state level to support clean election reform and limit the campaign contribution system for local executive branch elected officials run out of the planning commission Source: DS

63)    The city should pay the full salary of local officials, rather than having the Mayors’ salary paid for in part by big corporations with development interests through GLI Source: DS

64)    Louisville should adopt green plans and Agenda 21 plans like many communities around the country and the world. Source: DS

65)    Louisville should adopt the reforms originally attempted here in the 1930’s and adopted in many newer communities, that build in citizen commission, staff and elected official ethics codes as central to all planning and development ordinances, commissions and boards. Source: DS

66)    Similarly, other early reforms, such as neighborhoods representatives on all boards and commissions, should be elected from the neighborhoods directly, as some communities like Seattle do, and their actions and decisions should be responsive / accountable to neighborhood sustainable development plans and local sustainable development councils. Source: DS

67)    The “urban growth boundary” and other ideas about how to deal with the actual dimensions of the development problems we face need to be explored seriously here. Given GLI’s control of economic development and influence on other policy, along with their commitment to their multi county growth plans, other partners than the metro government probably need to be found. Source: DS

68)    Neighborhoods plans should consider the “federative” approach that some of us have been advocating for neighborhood groups, for instance “neighborhoods growth boundaries” and multi-neighborhood sustainable planning processes within and outside of Jefferson Co. Source: DS

69)    For neighborhoods who want to look into federative approaches, the experiences of the Institute for Civic Values neighborhoods contracts approach can be valuable. Source: DS

70)    Neighborhoods plans should be online, and not merely through a “standardized" process, and limiting "template" like Neighborhoods Link, but through interactive and ongoing online sustainable GIS systems like Index or even MOOS and MUDS at the neighborhood level. These should be developed and controlled by folks in neighborhoods, not simply a “service “ of some agency.  Some neighborhoods groups are already beginning to do this. Source: DS

71)    Who speaks for neighborhoods? The new “naming” process for previously un-named neighborhoods worries some folks. How can different and simultaneous voices, names and development needs be respected? How can we blend many voices and the fluid boundaries of neighborhoods, not get turned into manageable rubber stamps for regional consolidation? Source: DS

72)    Different neighborhoods have very different issues and approaches.  Within neighborhoods there are a range of issues from the simple to the complex.  How do we go about responding to  the standard day to day problems of neighborhoods and learn from them? How do we go about making these complicated issues of zoning and infrastructure and long term planning relevant to folks in solving day to day problems? How do we keep focused on the development we want and doing the work necessary to get there without so much burnout and on occasion bankruptcy for neighborhoods groups nad individuals who take on the fight? How do we build citizen groups connected to other kinds of organizations so we really develop a majority in the neighborhood and community wide who “get it” and can share the load?  Source: DS

73)    Concern was expressed regarding neighborhoods surveillance systems and how neighborhoods plans can or should push for open and transparent surveillance, or exercise bans based on privacy rights that include private store surveillance as well as public systems.  What are the issues to be balanced? Related:  Digital documentation projects as part of neighborhoods plans need to respect privacy. Source: DS

74)    The discussion of neighborhood sustainable assets inventories, infrastructure development and neighborhoods buy local approaches led to consideration of socially responsible procurement and investment not only by neighborhoods but by the City and local institutional investors. – How can neighborhoods plans and action influence the city design / build standards of the city and small cities and related institutions and their procurement and investment approaches? Source: DS

75)    Neighborhoods projects which require budget commitments, bonding or similar financial leveraging from the city and other agencies should reflect the values put forward in neighborhoods plans. Sometimes this is part of preservation efforts, as in the Bloom School preservation and rehab.  Such approaches should reflect not only preservation but the other values and specifics of the neighborhoods plans from design through financing to long term sustainability. How provide teeth to this linkage? Source: DS

76)    How can neighborhoods make the bid and contract system for infrastructure and services in their neighborhoods transparent when the city or other agencies are in charge?  How deal with the proliferation of road resurfacing and extension contracts when elections near? How detect bid rigging or other ways in which unnecessary or non-sustainable infrastructure gets built? Source: DS

77)    In some cases there may be a basis for class action suits and related strategies regarding the way development decisions are being made by the Administration, Council, Planning Commission, etc. What constitutes a class? More on this to follow soon. Source: DS

78)    Planning commission needs to be coordinated with the landmarks commission and neighborhoods plans. If a neighborhood plan says a structure is to be preserved, that should be it.  Right now there are no teeth to the neighborhoods ordinance and the landmarks commission is often absent form  planning commission and council considerations Source: DS

79)    The landmarks commission district should be expanded to include the whole county Source: DS

80)    Preservation status should mean a specific zoning designation Source: DS

81)    Neighborhood and city-wide sustainable economic development councils with teeth should be put in place to oversee development processes are sustainable at the neighborhood and regional level Source: DS

82)    Neighborhoods plans should include neighborhoods public housing throughout the community Source: DS

83)    Public housing and subsidized housing  should be not just “affordable” but sustainable. Source: DS

84)    Neighborhoods “Sustainable Community Learning and Action Teams” approaches similar to the Communities by Choice methods could be very helpful to many neighborhoods groups. We should consider bringing in and learning with Communities by Choice, Rocky Mountain Institute, Ecoteams and other organizations and communities which have successfully developed an d used these methods elsewhere. Source: DS

85)    Several people requested additional copies of the Communities By Choice booklet and other resources.  Adena will get more and forward additional references. Source: DS

86)    Neighborhood plans need to include sustainable transportation alternatives, from increased bike routes, pedestrian safety and traffic calming to skepticism regarding large scale road and bridge building, along with support for various forms of rail, but also should include sustainable livelihoods, financing, and so on. Source: DS

87)    Neighborhoods need new ways to influence financing for development which support their values and concerns,  such as the location efficient “smart commute” mortgages that CART is advocating or the Fannie Mae backed energy efficient housing mortgages Adena is suggesting. Source: DS

88)    Instead of or along with promoting Louisville as the “16^th biggest” city, or mecca for high tech and logistics like UPS, emain and the medical incubators, Louisville should be developing a sustainable neighborhoods research and development capability. This would include how to integrate the development concerns of neighborhoods as the starting point for development planning, and pursue research designed to solve the problems of sustainable development not just as a “planning” or real estate problem but in terms of neighborhoods infrastructure, livelihoods, technology, etc. Such research should not simply be for quality of life, social services or economic development locator information, and shouldn’t be based in the GLI or social services complex (which doesn’t support or understand such work, and appears to actively oppose anti-sprawl and substantial sustainability work here). Source: DS

89)    How can we understand the deals that go on behind closed doors at GLI and their potential impact on neighborhoods? How can we build in notice, review and comment/teeth on those negotiations in the same way we try to get due process and notification from developers, the planning commission, Mayor and Council on neighborhood development proposals? Source: DS

90)    Such sustainable neighborhoods research and development would build on the strengths of the existing and potential workforce, ecosystems and infrastructure of neighborhoods and the region, for instance in sustainable agriculture, biological materials chemistry, construction re-directed to green building re-hab, transportation alternatives and other areas  that work for the neighborhoods and are part of the emerging global sustainable and green economies.  Source: DS

91)    In many ways Louisville neighborhood groups could benefit from learning more about democracy and organizing themselves with not just greater participation but actually more democratic organizations. Again, there are places here in town and elsewhere around the country that are doing this well, but others, such as LCON, are struggling. If neighborhoods were democratically organized, turnout at hearings would be much greater, and more importantly, neighborhoods would have plans with teeth, and therefore be more successful in partnering with developers for sustainable development, rather than so often involved in losing NIMBY positions. Source: DS

92)    The neighborhoods advocacy working group may be an exception which might be useful.  There was some disagreement about this. Personally, I think it’s a good idea hobbled by a leadership that doesn’t want neighborhoods to act on issues. Source: DS

93)    Participate in the Louisville Neighborhoods, Conversation Café and Neighborhoods Institute “sister neighborhoods” projects to learn from each other. Source: DS

94)    Sustainable neighborhoods asset inventories can be undertaken as they are in other communities, not just infrastructure, but community resources for transitions to sustainable development.  Steve Magre had some sort of inventory going in the 5^th Ward? Source: DS

95)    The new districts need to have sustainable development inventory and similar information compiled on a district basis too, not just social services demographics, or service delivery “business as usual” planning. Source: DS

96)    The lists of contacts with neighborhoods need to be opened up and not controlled as they have been by LCON and the City Neighborhoods office.  Everybody except the neighborhoods folks seems to know how to get in touch with neighborhoods “leaders”.  We need to be able to talk to each other.  These contacts should be treated as Open Records for neighborhoods folks. Source: DS

97)    The existing data on the health effects of sprawl, industrial and auto pollution, etc. need to be released. Toxins not proven safe need to be identified as such and excluded from current and future use in the community. Boards and commissions, developers and the city need to address these health effects and considerations and prove that they are observing the precautionary principle before they undertake new projects. Source: DS

98)    The neighborhoods need to deal with getting the word out to people more effectively, both for pro-active planning like neighborhoods plans and for stopping problems before they get to far gone, as in hearings and issues that are in dispute.  To do that neighborhoods groups need to have partners that won’t censor communications and will build databases and information networks and “get out the people” alerts that really reflect neighborhoods folks concerns, which are not necessarily the agendas of agencies and foundations. Just as there is a need for engineers and architects who get paid and are not just emergency pro-bono folks,  there is a need to fund people on more than a hit or miss basis who will be available to help research and tell the neighborhoods stories in an effective, community wide way. Source: DS

99)    We should set up one or two meetings soon with Melissa Mershon and other agency heads and reps. Source: DS

100) Neighborhood and urban planning about social conditions, sustainability, and quality of life should be under a neighborhoods partnership based in something like the sustainable development councils, not a GLI run or non-profit social services agency controlled “urban institute” serving business and business foundation interests Source: DS

101) Below are links to some of the issues developed in collaboration with the Neighborhoods Advocacy Group and posted on http://louisvilleneighborhoods.org Other issues will be added soon to update from several different neighborhoods groups in Louisville.  The 70 odd suggestions above and others as developed by this planning group will be posted there as well in the next few days. Source: DS

·         Issue 1 Light Rail and Transit Source: Adv

·         Issue 2 Sustainable Development Councils Source: Adv

·         ISSUE 3 Energy Efficient Mortgages Source: Adv

·         Issue 4 Sustainable Neighborhood Agriculture Source: Adv

·         Issue 5 State Legislative Advocacy- Source: Adv

·         ISSUE 6 Health Care Source: Adv

·         ISSUE 7 Neighborhood Concerns about the Corporate Amendment to the KY Constitution Source: Adv

·         ISSUE 8 Metropolitan Government Appointments to Boards and Commissions Source: Adv

·         Issue 9 Comment extension from 30 to 75 days on the soon to be released Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bridges Project Source: Adv