I've been a pretty harsh critic of Atlanta Beltline in the past -- based on the fact that they made obviously unrealistic predictions about the construction schedule of the Eastside Trail, and handled their repeated missed deadlines by quietly changing the narrative rather than by giving potential trail users information about the problems and their effects on the final timeline.
I've been told that Atlanta Beltline has learned its lesson about the importance of accurate information. But I'm still skeptical: When they were boosting the T-SPLOST, they responded to me, about this specific complaint, that the T-SPLOST would mandate an online system for tracking the status of every project. I countered that they already had a website on which they could post such information immediately. They replied that this was worth consideration. Yet, it still hasn't happened, more than a year later.
For example, they actually have a "Construction Progress" section on their website -- but the Edgewood Avenue Bridge page in that section hasn't been updated since demolition began about a year ago. A simple monthly update along the lines of "We did A, B, and C in the last 30 days. In the next 30 days we anticipate doing X, Y, and Z. Construction is/is not on schedule." (And, if not on schedule, some information would be warranted about whether, and how much, this affects the final deadline.)
On another front, they claim to want connections to adjacent businesses -- but Kroger on Ponce de Leon reports that it has been ready for months to start construction on a connection, and is just waiting for Atlanta Beltline approval. I and others have asked what the holdup is (and I'm told that Kroger is pressing the issue as well) -- but we've received nothing but silence from them.
Atlanta Beltline refers to the people in the community as "stakeholders" when it goes to some agency or another for money. But when they'e not actively trying to get somebody to write them a check, they treat us like nuisances rather than stakeholders. Atlanta Beltline has done a decent job of creating improvement FOR the community -- but it's long past time for them to start doing their work WITH the community.
I don't mind this too much: The key to embracing diversity is to be aware of things, not ignorant of them.
But, that said, I would encourage more of a focus on religious/cultural celebrations year-round, rather than just winter celebrations. Jews already complain that Hanukkah is over-emphasized and mischaracterized simply because of its timing near Christmas. And the Muslim calendar, being shorter than the Gregorian Calendar by several days, means that their holidays float through the various seasons rather than being locked into one.
(Also, this emphasis on "winter" makes it difficult even to explore Christmas fully, as it's a summer holiday -- with summer-like traditions that children might do well to learn about -- in the tropics and the southern hemisphere.)
This is probably a good choice for GSU -- but I hate to see that building go: It's an emblem of how car infrastructure can sometimes be transformed to other uses, and it's an icon of the university (the yearbook is even named "The Rampway" in honor of Kell Hall).
It was an awful building to study in, but a great one to remember.
@xi: "tl;dnr " and "Any clauses on what happens and who pays if/when the construction costs increase or the tax revenue falls below the projections?"
Too lazy to read, but not too lazy to comment? I wonder why you think you'd bother to read the answer in the comments, if you couldn't be bothered to read it in the source document that's sitting right in front of you.
I don't mind the public funding as long as the city owns the venue (as in the case of Turner Field) as opposed to giving it away to a corporation (as in the new Falcons stadium).
Didn't the Braves say they wanted to own the stadium? Since they're the only tenant, I don't see the downside to giving it (and nothing else) to them. But I'm certainly willing to be educated as to why this would be bad policy.
Alternately, if the city continues to own it, I see no reason not to fulfill our responsibility as landlord of Turner Field.
If either of these is a good starting point for negotiating with the Braves, let's go for it. But if they're too greedy, let 'em go.
She's right, though, isn't she? Isn't this what most of us have been saying since the announcement?
If we who often oppose the views of the Tea Party suddenly find ourselves in agreement with them, that's a sign that we should celebrate and build on the consensus -- not a sign that we have to change our minds just to remain "pure" in our opposition.
This is a non-issue. Governments routinely post these advisories -- more to cover their asses (in case a citizen acts like a moron abroad) than because they have a distrust of the other place. What the French have written about Atlanta is not worse, nor even much different, than what the U.S. Department of State has written about travel to France in General and Paris in particular. See http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/c… .
All Comments »
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation