| "The People" (any group) putting together a Master Plan, do not necessarily come up with the perfect plan by any stretch of the imagination. Also, those selected to work on it can be unduly influenced by the powers that be (or by outside influences) at any given time that a Master PLan is in the works.
During the last administration, the Master PLan was worked on by the committee and than was changed behind closed doors (out of view of the committee itself and the general public) before being presented to city council for approval. A sharp council member caught the attempt and brought it to the attention of other council members and the committee, and the people in general.
In my opinion, a Master PLan should be a wish list made with good intentions, with the awareness that circumstances may arise where changes to the plan need to be made for the good of the community.
Although I understand the reasoning behind wanting a plan set in stone, having seen first hand the good and bad of government in "action", there is good and bad concerning setting a Master Plan in stone, as well as in having it only as a wish list for the future.
It's much like the debate over term limits. There is good and bad about having term limits in place. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
If you want to legislate any parts of the Master Plan, it should be worked on by council committees after the approval of a basic Master PLan... and done covering individual sections of the city or dealing with particular issues in the city that would do well to have set in stone.
And remember that any given city council can change any legislation at any time they choose if they have enough votes. Nothing is ever set in stone.
|
Mild Abuse
Abuse
Flagrant Abuse
