Happy CZO Day!

City Council is voting on the new comprehensive zoning ordinance today.  Everyone is excited about this. Everyone is also upset for one reason or another. I was going to put together a round-up of local news coverage from today's papers but there isn't any. So that's weird.

Here, instead, is a smattering of opinion published in the preceding months.

The Lens ran a series of op-eds.  In this one, Keith Hardie complains that a draft of the new CZO will allow for too much commercial development in the city's parks.  

The draft CZO pushes in the wrong direction, greasing the skids for commercial development in parks. First, it will broaden the range of permitted commercial and intensive uses of parkland, mainly by making restaurants — now allowed only in a zoo — to be “permitted uses” anywhere in our “regional” parks (Audubon, City, and Joe Brown). What this means is that once a park board has announced its development scheme, the City would be required to issue a permit for a new restaurant without further public review

Here, again, is Hardie opining that relaxed parking requirements for commercial development are a gift to developers and a recipe for neighborhood congestion.

Those cars are going to park somewhere. The idea that people are going to opt for our not-so-great public transit system is, I’m sorry to say, a fantasy. The deregulation is a gift to developers with a thin coating of green paint. It’s green-washing.  It’s Donald Trump in drag as Ralph Nader. To those of us who haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid, it’s clear that if the proposed CZO is not amended, traffic in these historic commercial areas will invade surrounding residential neighborhoods, increasing parking on sidewalks and in front yards and generally creating congestion.

A second effect of parking deregulation will be to skew development in favor of cookie-cutter national chains, crowding out the quirkier, locally-owned shops. Chains which can’t now open in historic neighborhoods because their operations require too many parking spaces will be relieved of that burden. So will larger tourist-oriented clubs and restaurants. Our historic and quirky shopping areas will begin to look more like airport terminals, filled with the usual ho-hum corporate logos.

"Donald Trump in drag as Ralph Nader" is a good line.  It describes most of the New Orleans middle class sensibility these days.

Diane Lease gives us a preservationist's point of view on increased commercial development allowances in Marigny.

For one thing, the very diverse downriver neighborhoods are in danger of being turned into colonies — the kind of places where the needs of the people who reside there are considered secondary to the interests of the tourist/hospitality/entertainment industry that caters to visitors.

A look at the Cultural Overlays and Enhancement Corridors prompts this question: What’s in it for us?

And by us I mean the people who choose to live in these residential neighborhoods and whose quality of life will be damaged by the zoning ordinance as currently drafted. Is the last-minute inclusion of citywide extended hours and expansion of alcohol sales and live music on predominantly residential streets really advisable? We, the residents of those streets — again, citywide — haven’t even been consulted.

It shouldn’t be necessary to point this out, but residents are also part of “the culture” that New Orleans markets so aggressively, unless by culture you mean nothing more than what can be commodified, branded, and sold to visitors — whether locals or tourists — seeking nightlife where anything goes, any place, any time.

You don't necessarily have to agree with every word of that.  I don't. But it is pretty clear the city wants to prioritize more nice things for tourists and rich people over the needs of residential neighborhoods. That's something worth paying attention to.

That's the basic message of this ad campaign, more or less.

The radio ad began running Wednesday on WWL-AM and WBOK.

In it, a man’s voice warns residents that the proposed new law will allow developers to build towers along the riverfront “not for ordinary people to enjoy the river but as a place for the rich to play.”

“We all love New Orleans, but right now, some people are lining up at City Hall to turn our New Orleans into their New Orleans,” the voice says. “Why is the city focused on penthouses at the expense of our neighborhoods?”

The Riverfront Alliance objects to a proposed “overlay district” in the ordinance that would allow new structures along some sections of the riverfront to qualify for a 25-foot “height bonus,” bringing a building’s maximum height to 75 feet if it incorporates certain “superior design elements.”

The overlay district would include lots along the river from Jackson Avenue to the Pontchartrain Expressway, in Algiers from Powder Street to Alix Street, and from Esplanade Avenue to the Industrial Canal, excluding the Marigny neighborhood.

Taller residential buildings would “fundamentally change our historic districts,” French Quarter Citizens President Carol Gniady said.

I'm not particularly swayed by the argument against "height" in and of itself.  And I'm certainly not as worried about "late-night bars" as this group seems to be.  I think we ought to have more bars.  That is, more local bars in residential neighborhoods. 

Shutting down bars also poses a potential problem for the city's arts and music scene. A group calling itself the Music And Culture Coalition of New Orleans has documented the ways in which the CZO might impact the live entertainment business here.

But the pattern of development around town is toward more adult Disney playgrounds in Hospitality Zones where nobody actually lives. I wish the neighborhood coalitions were more attuned to this problem than concerned about aesthetic preservation for its own sake the way many of them seem to be. 

Still, a lot of their complaints are valid, if only by accident. Because of this, the new CZO is a big deal. I don't understand why it isn't getting a more intense press treatment this week.  At least there is some live-tweeting going on this afternoon.  Looks like they might be there a while.

Before vote on full CZO, council will get comment and vote on 62 amendments. Let's hope they're not read into record. pic.twitter.com/FeQiairpoS

— Jaquetta White (@jaquettawhite) May 14, 2015

Awkward juxtapositions

The most basic of several reasons I've been suspicious of the new CZO is I always thought that "awkward juxtapositions" were what made urban life interesting.

Meanwhile groups representing some Uptown neighborhoods called for changes to the building guidelines for St. Charles Avenue. The ordinance divides the avenue into several zones, each of which has different rules.

“That makes for some awkward juxtapositions, particularly with regard to height and setbacks,” said John Bendernagel. The avenue needs some “mechanism of broad oversight” that will consider it in totality, he said.

It should be possible to simplify the zoning rules without also enforcing a bland sense of uniformity on our neighborhoods.  Cities are place where you find bars next to churches next to houses next to grocery stores next to.. breweries, even.

Residents who attended Tuesday’s hearing mostly applauded the commission’s staff for their work in taking on the monumental task, but they still recommended a few tweaks to the ordinance.

Scott Wood, who owns Courtyard Brewery, asked that breweries be listed as permitted uses in more business and commercial zones, instead of being restricted largely to industrial areas. The wide range of brewing techniques doesn’t restrict the process to an industrial setting, Wood said.

Before moving forward with a plan for a brewery on Erato Street, Wood said, he had to go through the long process of requesting a conditional use from the commission and the council.

He said he hopes the zoning ordinance will permit breweries in more areas so the industry’s growth isn’t stifled.

"Spot zoning" really ain't all that bad

Owen Courreges latches on to a case of private property mislabeled as a park to poke at the city's proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which, thanks to a 2010 ballot resolution will supposedly carry the "force of law." Here's the thrust of his complaint.

The notion is supposed to be that, by creating planning rules that have the force of law, we’ll eliminate the cronyism and corruption that permeates zoning determinations. No more “spot zoning;” no more connected elites running roughshod over the zoning code.

The problem is that the cure is worse than the disease. Unless we decide to loosen zoning restrictions (and that doesn’t seem to be on the table), there are always going to be times when imposing a particular restriction seems to be too onerous and doesn’t serve the public good.

Put simply, imposing a zero-tolerance, “the law is the law” mindset eliminates a necessary safety value from our highly restrictive system of zoning.

Moreover, that whole "elites running roughshod" thing will still happen only with fewer opportunities for checks on that via our democratically elected councilpersons. 

The City Planning Commission has scheduled public hearings on the current draft of the CZO this month.  You can review the draft here if you happen to be that sort of nerd.

Shit My Jackie Says

Jackie Clarkson had to bolt early from tonight's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance presentation. Apparently she needs to be good and rested for tomorrow's big budget show.  And that makes some sense, especially if she's planning to participate in the drinking game we discussed earlier.  She made sure to get all her zingers in early, though. 

Quotes via Uptown Messenger's live coverage:

Of course, the CZO is a major accomplishment... of Jackie Clarkson's

Clarkson says that she has been working on the CZO for decades, and enacting it will be a "dream come true for this city."

The CZO may yet be proven to cause chronic brain disease

The CZO will add clarity to the process for both developers and residents, she says.

"It's like playing for the NFL: The rules don't change at halftime," Clarkson says.

The CZO is a forward-looking document that represents a bold step into the future. Or maybe the opposite of that.

"This city's on a roll like it hasn't been since the 40s, and I remember the 40s well," Clarkson says.

This may or may not have cleared matters up for you.  If it hasn't, you should know the CZO draft is available for you to read at the City Planning Commission's website.  

The next community meeting is scheduled for Planning District 7 (Bywater, 8th Ward, Upper Ninth Ward) this Wednesday at 6 PM at the Colton School on St. Claude Avenue.

Tower to the skies

Certain development proposals in New Orleans generate an absurd amount of passionate opposition. This week's example was this apartment building at 1031 Canal Street (the site of the old Woolworth's) which the City Council eventually approved after some typically theatrical discussion. The objection from preservationists, as I understand it.. although I'm not sure I do, appears to center around the proposed height of the building.

As proposed, most of the building would be 193 feet high, with a penthouse reaching to 205 feet, or three times the 70-foot limit allowed by the site's current zoning. The ordinance approved by the council will limit the building's tallest portion to 190 feet.

Because, for some reason, 120 feet beyond the so-called limit is better than 135 feet? I'm not sure I understand what is being gained there. Later in the story it gets even more confusing.

Although the site's current zoning sets a 70-foot height limit, a draft of the city's proposed new comprehensive zoning ordinance would raise that to 120 feet. The planning staff recommended approving a 120-foot building, but the commission voted 5-3 last month to approve the 190-foot height Kailas sought.

Even the preservationist and French Quarter leaders said they would accept a 120-foot building, but Kailas said that limit would make the project "100 percent non-financeable." He said he has financing in place for the 205-foot building, though he would accept limiting it to 190 feet.

Preservationists had been arguing that the building's height would contrast with its surroundings despite the obvious presence of taller structures on Canal Street within only a few blocks of the site. To this they added an equally silly appeal to the supposedly good government principle of adhering to the limits of the master plan.

(French Quarter Citizens President Brian) Furness and leaders of the Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents and Associates organizations said the proposal also would violate the city's master plan, which calls for buildings of low to medium density in the neighborhood, but Kailas noted that the City Planning Commission staff urged approval of a 190-foot building at the site.

At Thursday's meeting there was more complaining about the violated sanctity of the master plan although it wasn't clear that the plan actually prohibits this sort of development or even imposes a height limit. The city zoning ordinance calls for a height limit of 70 feet but nobody was arguing that be strictly observed.

At one point, Jackie Clarkson even claimed to have written the Master Plan herself although this probably is not true. We're pretty sure she would have been too busy flying helicopters and firing canons at runaway barges to take that on. Unless she had one of her father's black friends draft one back during the 1950s, there's just no way she would have had the time. Anyway I'm told Jackie eventually voted for the proposal because it "pushes the envelope" which we'll just assume is something that needs doing.

The whole argument is yet another example of preservationist incoherence. Nine times out of ten these arguments are really about different groups of well to do property owners arguing over who gets what set of rights and privileges with the appeal to "preservation" being merely a tool of convenience for whichever side isn't proposing the specific development in question. Rarely, though, is any of this ever about mere aesthetics.

Sometimes it's not even that. In some cases, preservationists have little more on the agenda beyond just calling attention to themselves. Take the demolition of this blighted building just a few blocks up Canal from the proposed apartment complex for example.

At 18 stories, the Grand Palace hotel is the largest building in the fooprint. Its demolition will cost nearly $2.5 million.

"I think it's time to knock down that building and some of the other stuff on Canal," said Patrick White, general manager of nearby Handsome Willy's. "I think it's time that Canal Street make a return to what Canal Street was back when our parents were growing up."

White believes demolishing the blighted hotel will help improve the neighborhood.

"Currently we have a bunch of issues with a lot of the homeless and the vagrants that come around and they break into our stuff," said White. "I know a lot of them like to use the abandoned buildings as temporary housing."

Others would rather see the long-abandoned structure brought back to life.

"I find it interesting that people think an empty space is better than having buildings around," said Sandra Stokes, board member of the Foundation for Historical Louisiana.

Preservationists argue that because developers don't plan to replace the hotel with another structure, tearing it down is premature..

"There's parking, a garage attached to this building, give us a litle while, let's study it, see if it can structurally support a parking garage," said Stokes.

Yes, isn't it interesting that people would prefer vacant lot to this festering empty tower. If this thing is such a nice building, why not just move it down to 1031 Canal? Soves everyone's problem, right?

Also, since our local news media are operating now in the post-Garlandgate era, we should point out it's been noted elsewhere that WIST's Eric Asher has spent an inordinate amount of time agitating for Kailas' apartment project on his radio show over the past month or so. Just yesterday afternoon, that same station's Joe Cardosi interjected a brief but glowing editorial of sorts during the Sports Hangover show praising the City Council for approving "progress". Is it too much to ask whether Kailas has been paying WIST to push his project?

Delusional

Thou Shalt Not Violate The Master Plan. Also you're too close to these other beloved and accepted violations of the plan.

But Sapir and other neighbors said the restaurant would create nightly problems in a neighborhood where most residents have to park on the streets and that already is home to two other popular restaurants. They said it would violate the city's master plan and would lead to more inappropriate rezoning requests. They said there are numerous properly zoned sites, including on nearby streets such as Magazine, where Gabrielle could open with no problems.

Or to put it another way, just shut up and leave Eddie Sapir's parking spot alone.

Speaking of hypocrisy and the law

What Rene said.

Master plan makes it illegal

They seem to have worked this out, but in the future expect to see this argument made about all sorts of things we might like to have in New Orleans but won't get because of scolding over what the master plan allows us to do.

New Orleans is run by a coalition of plutocratic gentry and Yuppie Lefties who like to think of themselves as enlightened intellectuals but are really just conservative elites. The largely irrelevant master plan is going to be a useful rhetorical tool for such people.

Oh goodie another planning meeting

I know a lot of people are excited about the new document that proposes to freeze and segregate urban development patterns according to professionally planned ideas of what constitutes proper land use. I am not one of those people. I instinctively understand that the professional planners don't have a lot in common with people of my sensibility and income level. So I'm not comfortable with giving their ideas a shield from what they would term the "whims" of my democratically elected representatives.

Anyway there's one more round of meetings coming up. Might have to go and mess with them a little.

Somewhat pleasantly surprised

To see that the BGR has so many problems with the Master Plan as of late. Typically I'm not a fan of either of those enterprises. Anyway, nice of BGR to provide this information to a public which has already forfeited the opportunity for it to inform a vote.

What this guy said

On today's idiot page, we find a remarkably non-idiotic letter.

Politics will always be a part of development: a letter to the editor
By Letters to the Editor
October 13, 2009, 1:35AM

Re: "Public meetings on N.O. master plan set for this week," Page 1, Oct. 12.
Anyone touting this plan as the be-all and end-all for making objective land use decisions should be run out of town. Politics and back-room deals will always be a part of zoning changes and development. It is the nature of the beast. The hope was that this new master plan would somehow correct the manipulative practices of the past. Bruce Eggler correctly points out that this new plan fails to do this.

Like previous documents, this one will have its text copied and pasted into requests for zoning changes and variances. Depending on the will of the "powers that be," only the text that support the outcome will be included or emphasized as the reason for making the decision.

This is not an excuse to throw out the plan. It is only to point out that it is just not right for it to be sold as a fair, non-political plan. Compounding this snake-oil sales pitch is what will likely be contained in the community participation section in Chapter 15. It is still under review, so we have no idea what is in it. At this late stage one can only guess that it will give a formal voice to residents' associations.

This may sound good, but the current form of many residents' associations gives a voice only to those on the board. These groups would more appropriately be labeled political action committees that push the agenda of the few that control the group.
Some residents' organizations, for example, will not allow an open ballot process to elect their board and president. Their sitting boards hand-pick the candidates that can be on the ballot. Formal polling is seldom done on issues affecting the membership. These are just some pitfalls of the autocratic character of these groups. Self-appointed leaders have no place in a system trying to achieve democracy and fairness.

Every single one of us should have an equal say in the decision-making process. Formalizing residents' associations in the land use decision process will only dilute the rights of the individual.

Gregg Huber
New Orleans

I'll go one further. Formalizing residents' associations voice in land use decisions is actually tantamount to government for and by property owners. This entire master-planning process has been about giving the "right sort of people" a firmer grip on the levers of power. An effective candidate for mayor might want to point this out.

Yay for NOLA.com

I'm well aware of how we all feel about some of the ugliness that goes on in NOLA.com threads but the discussion below this article about the North Claiborne expressway fantasy is actually pretty good. Anyone familiar with the way preservationism tends to favor the powerful in this city will recognize this argument, for example.

Those who deride "Generic, suburban development" also known as strip malls with national chains:

Do you not realize that the commercial development on Claiborne in the 50s was not unique to New Orleans? Every downtown area in major American cities had similar districts. What you idolize in some romantic retelling of the past was then what strip malls are today. They were how businesses were built. That's how all American cities looked. The difference is that in New Orleans, the past was preserved.

Talk as you will about how preserving that economy was good for New Orleans. It was and is great for the wealthy. St. Charles, Magazine, Carrollton, it's great for them because it's a tourist attraction and an enjoyable, throw back way of life. It was, however, devastating to communities that could not afford to be boutique, places like Treme and Central City.

Economic progress in today's world will make life more equitable in New Orleans. Preservation and attempts to return to how it was will continue to keep New Orleans divided economically.

The rich want to keep it the same because for them, life in New Orleans is great. Change? Modernize? HELL NO, because they moved to New Orleans for the funk and the old times. Progress be damned. Moving the depressed areas forward? HELL NO if it means modernization.

IT IS AS IT WAS AND IT SHALL ALWAYS BE AS IT WAS. This is how the "liberal" white New Orleanians champion their cause of the truest reactionary conservatism in America today. It's all a vacation for them.

I'll venture to add that nobody likes "generic suburban development" architecture and many (though not all) of us are less than thrilled with the commercial (and cultural) homogenization implied by the presence of national chain retailers. But these are primarily aesthetic matters* and usually are inconsequential to the actual health of the neighborhoods preservationists often presume to be protecting. But you can't urban plan your way out of a depressed economy.

Besides, if the Claiborne expressway is torn down, what will replace it? Rather than the North Claiborne of 30 years ago, we're likely to end up with the North Claiborne of today minus the overpass plus maybe a few more Dollar Generals and an Urban Outfitters or two.... and, of course, a ridiculously inconvenient means of getting across town.

But, as I said yesterday, none of this makes any difference since it's not going to happen anyway. It's just a bit of funny talk thrown in to guard against any last-minute opposition to the master plan which, I am told, also includes a provision for granting each New Orleanian his or her own personal monorail.

*A large part of the impetus behind "Buy Local" movements is born of economic and environmental concerns. But more often than not, the "solutions" coming out of such movements are fundamentally conservative in nature, focusing on policing individual lifestyles and opposing major economic development.

Update: Cousin Pat lists (maps, really) multiple things that he thinks "would have to change should New Orleans remove its I-10 over North Claiborne Avenue." It's.. um.. a lot of things... which serves as further indication of how poorly thought out the Big Idea here really is.

Upperdate: One more thing regarding the "Buy Local" movement. This week's Gambit cover story looks at ways in which national chains are attempting to co-opt the word "local" in their ad campaigns.

Surveys and anecdotal reports from business owners suggest that these initiatives are in fact changing spending patterns. A survey of 1,100 independent retailers conducted in January by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (where I work) found that, amid the worst economic downturn since the Depression, buy-local sentiment is giving local businesses an edge over their chain competitors. While the Commerce Department reported overall retail sales plunged almost 10 percent over the holidays, the survey found independent retailers in cities with buy-local campaigns saw sales drop an average of just 3 percent from the previous year.

None of this has slipped the notice of corporate executives and the consumer research firms that advise them. Several of these firms have begun to track the localization trend. In its annual consumer survey, the New York-based branding firm BBMG found that the number of people reporting locally produced products are "very important" to them jumped from 26 to 32 percent in the last year. "It's not just a small cadre of consumers anymore," founding partner Mitch Baranowski says.

 "Food is one of the biggest gateways, but we're seeing this idea of 'local' spread across other categories and sectors," says Michelle Barry, senior vice president of the Hartman Group. A report published by Hartman last year noted, "There is a belief that you can only be local if you are a small and authentic brand. This isn't necessarily true; big brands can use the notion of local to their advantage as well." Barry explains: "Big companies have to be much more creative in how they articulate local. ... It's a different way of thinking about local that is not quite as literal."

Funny stuff.

Things that aren't going to happen

It's a nice thought and all but, in addition to a massive amount of disruptive construction work accross the heart of the city, removing the Claiborne overpass would also require a compensating investment in public transit infrastructure in order to mitigate the resulting traffic nightmare.

Anyway none of this matters since the "project" is only being talked up right now to combat any potential last-minute political threat to the final Master Plan. Think of it as another one of those Big Shiny Ideas that distract the public discourse for a time but aren't really meant to be implemented. It's not Ray Nagin's idea, but I'm sure he appreciates the maneuver.


Also see: In early 2006, I posted this set of photos from under the bridge where I watched an "All-star second line" make it's way through a still largely broken city.

We will regret this

Locking the city into an unchallengeable suburban template is a very bad idea.... unless you really are looking for that "Atlanta moment"

WWLTV writes future-fic headlines

WTF

Voters would approve city's master plan if bill had been passed

When I saw that headline I at least expected it to refer to some sort of recent polling data. Even then, I would have had an issue with it. But nope it's just a story about the stalled vote on Murray's bill which would put the finished plan to a referendum. But no need for any of that! The headline swami has spoken.

Awesome planning process

I'm so glad we voted to live with whatever these people decide for us.

At one point, planners invited GNOBEDD President and CEO James P. McNamara to address the crowd. He spoke briefly about what the district was and pushed back against the assertion that GNOBEDD was empowered to create its own land use master plan. However, it's unclear whether or not he was entirely forthcoming. According to the special powers clauses attached to the Greater New Orleans Biosciences Economic Development District Act passed by the Louisiana Legislature in 2005, GNOBEDD has the legal authority "to develop and implement a master plan for the district related to biosciences... in coordination with the Louisiana Board of Regents with respect to public higher educational institutions." Also, according to a document obtained from GNOBEDD, a message signed by McNamara says in quite explicit terms, "GNOBEDD's next course of business is a comprehensive 25 year master plan and land use study for the entire GNOBEDD area that will transition into the City of New Orleans new Master Plan." Though Mr. McNamara stayed for the whole meeting and was available to speak with on an individual basis, planners did not allow attendees to ask follow-up questions to him in front of the whole audience. When some people stood up to ask questions anyway, the planners shouted over them using the microphone.


Mid-City residents were generally not pleased about this and became increasingly agitated with Goody Clancy representatives as questions related to the hospital plans and GNOBEDD went unanswered or deflected, sometimes with a derisive tone that many clearly took as patronizing or offensive. Though attendees had some pretty important questions to ask about the implications of these two oversights in the plan, the planners made it extremely clear that they would not be indulging us with actual answers or the opportunity to ask follow-up questions. Instead, though every single breakout group had unanswered questions about the hospitals, they were skipped. Even questions posed about matters unrelated to the hospital or GNOBEDD were interrupted and rudely waved off.

Up or down vote

Let us read it before we're stuck with it. What's the problem, Stacy? Shelley? Jackie? Arnie? Jimmie?

Happy Green Dot Day

The Green Dots are dead

Long live the Green Dots

Democracy in action... working hard and fast to quell democracy

Friday night, on Informed Sources, Erroll Laborde beamed over the passage of a change to the city charter giving the as-yet-to-be-written citywide master plan the "force of law" Erroll was excited because in his (approximate and paraphrased) words, "The way it works now if, say, Donald Trump wants to come and build a high rise building in a neighborhood, he first has to deal with the City Council and the neighborhood people and other City officials and the process gets bogged down. But if there's a plan, then Donald Trump can just pick the neighborhood he's automatically allowed to build in and then do it."

And... to finish Erroll's sentence... anyone in that neighborhood who may not care for Mr. Trump's hypothetical building, no longer has any recourse because we've all agreed upon a binding plan drawn up by some consulting firm the city hired.

This is, to put it neatly, fucking stupid. By voting for the charter change, New Orleanians will have ceded their right to object to wide categories of future development that might threaten their neighborhoods.

Charter change proponents have argued that this wholesale forfeiture of democratic process is mitigated by the notion that the plan itself will be created "by the community" through a series of public meetings. If you believe that, the city has some high yield bonds it's looking to unload which you may also be interested in. One would expect that by now, we'd all be familiar with just how condescending and pointless "community planning" meetings are. No one in New Orleans who has been paying attention for the past three years has any excuse to believe otherwise.

But more to the point, is it not obvious that the sense of a community in regard to hypothetical future development is a very different and less relevant thing than its reaction to actual development at the time that is proposed? A master plan that claims to articulate the undefinable "sense of the community" this year should not be given precedence over the considerations of aggrieved neighbors should a developer seek to build a plan-approved encroachment upon them in the future.

Here's how the farcical process we are currently engaged in works. First the city will hold public meetings which will be sparsely attended by a few of the more active property holders in each neighborhood. Those attendees will be handed stickers or crayons or tongue depressors or whatever and asked to create some sort of craft representing their "vision" of their community in the future. The inevitably incoherent results of these craft projects will be handed over to the planning consultants at Goody Clancy who will immediately toss it out the window, draw up their own plan and present it to the City Council for approval. The Council approves the plan (to the cheers of an odd combination of plutocrats AND "good governement" types... the politics of all this is another topic though). Two years later, Donald Trump (or somebody) decides it's time to build six high rise condo along the riverfront in Bywater. The neighbors are outraged. But now that they have reason to pay attention, they learn too late that the planners wanted to encourage development along the underutilized waterfront. Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done at this point, since the "democratically designed" master plan has been democratically assigned the force of law.

You may wish to call me out for criticizing an imaginary aspect of a plan that doesn't exist yet. I figure, though, that makes about as much sense as asking voters to approve that same non-existent plan.

“Why are we voting on a plan that doesn’t exist?"

Look. Even if you are the whitest Yuppie planning-humper in all of Uptown New Orleans, there is just no plausible excuse to support this obvious insult of a shell game.

Stop telling me how important it is for me to surrender my right to self-government to a cookie-cutter master plan with the "force of law" that hasn't even been drawn up yet.