|The project concepts seem to be organized in thirds|
|(This is a better pdf from the Oct 1 NGRAB meeting)|
Separately, in an announcement of upcoming Public Hearings, there's a note for November 9th: "Request by Stephanie Fry, Inc to initiate condemnation of real property interests located at 750 Valley River Drive, NW." That's just off Wallace Road near Hope Avenue where the proposed bridge runs through a bunch of houses and lots in the River Valley subdivision. Probably it's not related to the Third Bridge, but it's worth watching for anyway.
A Cluster of Council Rules
Then Council proper, distinct from the Urban Renewal Agency (whose members are the same, though the entities are incorporated separately), shifts over and meets in Council Chambers at 6:30pm.
In what looks like it could be a small blow against free assembly and free speech, the City proposes to classify the atrium in City Hall in such a way as to make it easier to kick people out:
The proposed policy clarifies and memorializes the City management of the Civic Center atrium, the covered courtyard inside city hall, and the breezeways adjacent to city offices. The policy declares that the atrium is essentially an "outdoor meeting room" which has traditionally been used for official City ceremonial functions, and as a meeting place for City employees. While it is open to the public, in terms of visitors coming to the Civic Center Plaza for specific purposes, it is not intended to be used as a traditional public park or public square. Clarifies that the breezeways connecting City offices are for the purpose of allowing access to City offices, and are not public forums. Establishment of the policy will provide clarification for City staff and the public in use of these spaces.At least that's how I read this, as a response to some demonstration activity there. Maybe you read it differently? It's a little odd, but perhaps there's backstory and context in which it all makes sense.
Narrowing the focus and activities of advisory boards is also back on the agenda, as well as changes to Council rules. Together these just don't seem very public-spirited, treating the public as distractions or problems rather than those whom staff and electeds serve. Though as commenters pointed out in a previous discussion here, there are also some important and seemingly obvious housekeeping details that are of obvious benefit. If you're interested in this side of things, the proposals are worth reading closely.
Other Things in Passing
The Legislative Priorities for 2016 are on the vague side, and there may not be yet much to say about them.
The SEDCOR Annual Report is interesting, but may not contain enough detail to be very useful - you know, it's BusinessCheer. Rah, Rah.