Esther Awesomeheimer

As a lawyer, I assume that Esther has learned the skill of getting right to the point when she argues a case. They might even teach that skill in law school.
I believe that with the few words she said that were shown in this video she encapsulated all that is right with this proposal, ie, fairness, equal rights, and walking the walk that Asheville is trying so damn hard to do.

I look forward to the day when this is not seen as a courageous act, and in fact, is not necessary at all.

All kudos to Esther, Gordon, Cecil & Brownie for doing the right thing here. Huzzah.

I’m not happy about what happened next, though. Esther advocated interviewing a commercial real estate broker for a seat on the powerful Planning & Zoning Commission. The broker, Russ Towers, works for a firm whose business is marketing some of the same projects that come before this Commission, including a major condo development right up the street from City Hall:

http://www.lewisrealestatenc.com/index.php?id=36

At the same meeting, Jan Davis recommended Tony Fraga(millionaire out-of-state developer who doesn’t even live in Asheville) for a seat on the Downtown Commission. Do the words “conflict of interest” not apply at all anymore?

Yes, I applaud Esther’s stance on the domestic partners issue. I hope that doesn’t lead others to take their eyes off the ball on development issues, which have proved to be among the most controversial and polarizing over recent years.

The same Tony Fraga that bankrolled the mayors campaign?

Well he topped the list, at least by late Oct. 2009. Second on the list? Craig Madison, the guy behind the failed Grove Park Inn condos, and the massive Ellington project. Third? Rusty Pulliam, President of “Western North Carolina’s largest full-service commercial real estate firm.”

You make an extremely cromulent point, Shad. However, I advise you to let it go. After all, (mumble-mumble) people voted for you, so that means you’re just as pretty as Terry.

Counter-Correction, Nathan. Tony Fraga does not live in the City of Asheville, as his own application to the P&Z Commission shows (where it says “Resident of City:”, “Asheville” is typed in, but then crossed out.) He lives outside city limits. Jan Davis acknowledged that & made the point that it would actually require a Council decision to change the rules to allow him to serve.

http://www.ashevillenc.gov/news/asheville_channel/default.aspx?id=2926

counter: 03:02:45

None of that touches the central issue: he’s already had one extremely controversial project rejected by the City. Almost certainly, he’ll continue to have significant development proposals up for review before the City’s Downtown Commission. It boggles the mind that he would be considered for a seat on this very body.

Nathan, you’ve endured the firestorm that ensues when people feel that “the fix is in”, and that money is swaying elected official’s decisions on these issues. Whether that’s a fair suspicion or not, I would think that elected officials would be seeking to ensure that there isn’t, shall we say, open containers of fuel laying around waiting for a spark…

We’ve missed your cromulence around here, Barry. Welcome back.

Michael, thank you for the post. You flatter me, but Gordon is the real hero for bringing this issue to the forefront.

Barry, have we met?

I put forward Russ Towers name because it was my understanding that folks on P&Z wanted to see him considered.

As to the conflict issue, anyone having a financial interest in an application must recuse themselves (including me, which happens from time to time). I’m not sure how we’d fill all these Board vacancies if we disqualified folks so broadly.

So Barry according to your logic the only folks who could serve on a govt. board of this type are people who will never be involved in development or risk their own resourcees, quite frankly I think that is nuts!

Our community is where we are today because people like EW Grove, George Vanderbilt, Julian Price, Charles D. Owen and others took a chance, risked their fortunes, and gave their blood, sweat and tears because they loved Asheville and hopefully in the future, there will be others who will do the same.

Yeah, the fix is in, our economy is in a deep, deep pit and it sure doesn’t seem to be getting any better. If we don’t have people who are willing to invest a fortune in Asheville and Buncombe County, you tell me where the money is going to come from to fund our schools, public safety, human services, transit, and other critical government functions?

I hope our local elected officials consider the money (ad valorem taxes, sales taxes, wages, etc.) a project will bring to the community because that is how they pay for all the stuff they have to do. Our elected officials should balance the financial benefits from a project (whether a new downtown development, industrial firm, etc. that wants to locate or expand here) with all the other competing values they must consider. That is why we pay them the “big” bucks. I don’t think our police officers and other governmental employees will accept monopoly money when pay time comes. They’ve got bills to pay like groceries, rent/mortgage, etc. and monopoly money ain’t going to cut it.

So Barry according to your logic the only folks who could serve on a govt. board of this type are people who will never be involved in development or risk their own resourcees, quite frankly I think that is nuts!

This is a distortion of what I said, Nathan. I said that it was inappropriate for people who have proposals pending before the City to be given a seat on a body that votes on whether they are approved or not. If you ask the average person on the street, I don’t think you’d find anybody who would call that “nuts”.

Our community is where we are today because people like EW Grove, George Vanderbilt, Julian Price, Charles D. Owen and others took a chance, risked their fortunes, and gave their blood, sweat and tears because they loved Asheville and hopefully in the future, there will be others who will do the same.

You seem to forget that they did it because they expected to eventually realize a profit. That’s a fair and respectable motivation, but it is not the same as civic wisdom, or objectivity. We needn’t turn the keys to the City over to them, but simply offer them a fair hearing on their proposals.

Truth be told, Nathan, your statement ignores economic reality altogether: if there weren’t a community of people here who work, pay taxes, spend money, and love it here as much as these luminaries, that investment would never happen. Development doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It only returns a profit because the community continues to be a place where people want to live. You risk killing the goose with the golden eggs if you chip away at the ‘commons’ by doing things like, oh, selling off scarce park land to private developers.

We shouldn’t view all development as evil

I never said it was, Nathan. But I am saying we don’t have to approve every single development that’s proposed. Some are simply inappropriate, like condominiums inside our parks, or massive skyscrapers, etc. Being able to discern between the appropriate and the not appropriate, IMHO, is helped by not having the actual developer sitting at the table next to you.

Rhetorical mudslinging doesn’t help. For example, Nathan, if you look at the record, I have voiced opposition to three, maybe four developments during the 13 years I’ve lived here (and each of those also stirred the opposition of thousands of other citizens). Four, out of the dozens or hundreds of buildings that have been approved over that time. But that doesn’t stop people like you continuing to paint us as opposing ALL development. Why is that?