Parkside: “I Wonder What They’ll Complain About Next”
By
Stewart Coleman in today’s Mountain Xpress:
“Anytime you’re going forward with a project of any kind, you’re going to make changes to satisfy public outcry and meet guidelines,†he told Xpress. “First they [the Pack Square Conservancy and other groups] weren’t happy with the height. Then they had to complain about something, so they were unhappy that we would use some part of parkland for staging. These changes have all been in response to concerns by local groups. I wonder what they’ll complain about next?â€
Mr. Coleman is playing coy with the public and the government regarding his Parkside Condominium project. Having already insulted the citizens (“this town listens to the noisy 80 people that jump around and dance around trees and do foolish stuff”) and ignored the broad, principled opposition to building on our public park land, Coleman intends to keep pushing fiction.
Holding our government and our citizens in contempt demonstrates Mr. Coleman’s arrogance and his disdain for the people of this city and county. His ducking and dodging illustrates the fact that this project would be rejected if given a full public hearing.
Coleman doesn’t care what you think, and he doesn’t care what your elected officials think. He’s going to have his building on our park no matter who he has to bulldoze to get it.
Stay tuned. Tomorrow I’ll lay out our options for releasing the park land that Mr. Coleman is holding hostage.
7 Comments
June 18th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
“These changes have all been in response to concerns by local groups.†What changes does Mr. Coleman refer to?
The first Parkside plan envisioned that the County would sell one more small triangle of land next to the larger “magnolia propertyâ€. When the controversy erupted, and the Conservancy said it blocked the “view corridorâ€, the County decided they couldn’t transfer any more land. Parkside was then adapted to the fact that they wouldn’t get this property. Mr. Coleman then claimed that in fact, this was done to accommodate the Conservancy’s concerns. It was not. It was done because he knew he wouldn’t get the land for the larger building, and the Conservancy said that the building STILL blocked the view corridor.
Next, at the Planning and Zoning Commission, they pointed out that Parkside violated the Conservancy’s height guideline by 2 1/2 stories. They suggested that a compromise of taking off one story might get Parkside their approval. Mr. Coleman refused, saying he could not make a fair profit if he scaled it down. The P&Z then refused to approve it. Later, he knocked off 2 stories, saying in so many words that he did it to get around the City Council, who was likely to reject Parkside. Again, he specifically refused to accommodate anyone’s “concernsâ€. He only later scaled back the building to squeeze under the Level II cap, because he couldn’t pass muster with the elected officials.
Last, he was due to go before the County for the Owners Affidavit for his staging needs. The public was going to be allowed to comment on this on June 24th, as stated by the County Commissioners. Mr. Coleman altered his staging plans, sidestepping this public hearing, and rushing approval ahead at the City staff level, 3 weeks sooner than he could have if he had gone through the County hearing.
He hasn’t made changes to accommodate concerns, he has been forced to make changes because his proposal is wildly unpopular, and he’s avoiding the elected officials at both the City and County who might actually listen to their constituents and do the right thing: end this insulting parade and buy him out.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
June 18th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I might complain about that atrocious hair piece, or haircut… Whatever that is, Donald Trump wants it back!
–mf
Rate this comment:
0 
0
June 18th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Monkeyfister!
We’ve missed you!
Everyone go check out mf’s blog.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
June 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Mr. Coleman might be a bit imperious, but that’s irrelevant. I have no problem with his condos. They could be a bit more intresting architecturally. Otherwise, my only regret is that I can’t afford one. However, if the land was held in public trust, then the sale should be void. I figure there would have to be a referendum at least.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
June 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The land was held in public trust; the people charged with protecting it violated their responsibilities. The case is in the courts; unfortunately, the lawyer is fighting it pro-bono and is being buried under paper by Coleman and the County. Coleman hopes to rush his approval through so that it becomes harder to oust him after he’s cut down the trees and broken ground.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
June 19th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Love back to you, Gordon!
Did you get that Shutterstock Image Download info I sent you? If not, I’ll resend it tomorrow.
all the very best to all you good folks in Asheville!
–mf
Rate this comment:
0 
0
June 19th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Yes, I did. I haven’t used it much, but it definitely comes in handy.
Keep doing what you’re doing.
Rate this comment:
0 
0