Above are links to the actual legislation which cites case law to support an amortization process--hence it may not be unconstitutional. Thanks to many on this thread who are willing to engage in serious and contemplative policy debate and refrain from personal attacks and innuendo, for such an approach is needed for all parties to collaborate in crafting best policy. It is worth noting that per the the Zoning Enforcement Division of the COA, that even when a non conforming business is currently closed, if it is being marketed for sale and/or lease, that prohibits discontinuation of its non conforming use. This being the case, one is left to wonder why bother rezoning anything in the City?
Many have commented here that if one lives in proximity to CBR one knew what to expect. That logic would suggest that change is never appropriate or desired. A transparent and inclusive process led to the CBR Study published in 1999 and the subsequent rezoning of the road in 2005. This process involved propety owners, business owners, residential owners, and City representatives. It is unrealistic to think that one can devise a plan/vision for an area that will generate 100% support. That said, the CBR Study, does enjoy broad support in our community. It promotes what is best about the street and seeks to improve elements that could use it. So it strikes me as odd, that some of the very parties who sat on the original Cheshire Bridge Task Force are now some of the same ones denouncing Alex's efforts to realize and implement the vision shaped by it, particularly after so vehemently seeking his help in getting relief from some of the problems which plague the street.
One of the central issues is this: should the character/zoning of a community be designed by it or for it? Amortization would allow for the implementation of the vision developed BY the broader community in a way that respects and adheres to recognized process. Shouldn't this kind of citizen engagement be championed?
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation