Greensboro City Council election 2005
Here are the final five from YES! Weekly, heavy hitters and softball questions included.
We hope you’ll read the candidates’ responses closely and attend candidates’ forums to see how they handle hard questions in real time. You can do just that Tues., Sept. 27 at Greensboro101.com’s forum for at-large candidates at UNCG’s Weaver Art Museum. The next night the League of Women Voters will host a forum for at-large candidates and candidates for the District 4 and 5 seats (Greensboro’s west side) at Congregational Church of Christ.
The primary election will be held Oct. 11, at which time the field will be narrowed down to six candidates for the three at-large seats, and two candidates for each of the district seats. The final arrangement of the new city council will theoretically be determined on Nov. 8, the date of the general election.
Do your civic duty.
Q: Should the city’s Comprehensive Plan be strictly adhered to, or should it serve as a loose guideline for growth and development?
Keith Holliday (incumbent): No, it should not be the Bible. I look at the Comprehensive Plan as a roadmap that includes more than one path that can be taken to reach a particular goal. A tool to be used by citizens, private groups (developers), city planners, and elected officials.
Sandra Anderson: The long-term Comprehensive Plan has been amended and changed several times. As change occurs in Greensboro we will have to adjust the plan according to the needs at that time. Any long-range plan requires tweaking from time to time.
Diane Davis: The Comprehensive Plan has been misunderstood and misused by almost everyone involved in the development process and in the implementation of the plan.
It has been touted by the present city council as a wonderful citizen-involved plan for good growth policies. Interpretation of the plan has been sketchy. The plan’s main goals are not being met and Greensboro continues its sprawl and poor community development standards.
Florence Gatten: The Comprehensive Plan is the product of two years of hard work by citizens that articulates a vision for the city’s growth and development. For me it is a vision statement that should function as a guide. The circumstances around particular parcels of land have changed since the plan was written. The rules of common sense and neighborhood compatibility are of primary importance when making land use decisions.
Dave Howerton: I think the Comprehensive Plan should be used as a reference for suggested growth and development. I believe in the right of a property owner to be able to use their property as they see fit as long as they do not harm their neighbor. Just because we want growth and development in certain areas does not mean it will happen there.
Yvonne Johnson, mayor pro tem (incumbent): The city’s Comprehensive Plan should be a guide for growth and development. However, as opportunities change themselves in certain sections of Greensboro, we should be flexible.
Joel Landau: Planning is a necessary function for a city. Tremendous time and energy were put into developing the Comprehensive Plan, with input from all sectors of the city. I believe it should be adhered to as much as possible, though there will be occasional need for an exception. However, exceptions should be rare, and done only with public discussion.
George Subasavage: The Comprehensive Plan was developed in 2003 as a guide for growth and development over the next 20 years. Due to the nature of how things have changed recently and how they will probably change in the future, the plan should only be used as a guide.
Don Vaughan (incumbent): The city’s Comprehensive Plan is a well-crafted road map for developing Greensboro’s future. It should be a strong guide for zoning and development. Changes should be made by the Council only after being carefully researched. No changes should be made without public notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Dianne Bellamy-Small (incumbent): The city’s Comprehensive Plan is a guide. It is an evolving plan subject to change based on the needs and desires of the citizens. It was put in place to help the city of Greensboro look to its future with some guidelines for what might be desired for the future of our city.
Charles Dayton Coffey: The Comprehensive Plan was designed to be a guide. This guide provides suggestions and avenues for which growth is monitored. Each development project has its own character and uniqueness. Therefore, each proposal must be addressed individually. If the proposal would benefit Greensboro as a whole, then possible exceptions to the plan may be considered.
Luther T. Falls Jr.: (No response)
Lewis Byers: I need more information on this question.
Toni Graves Henderson: The Comprehensive Plan should serve as a guideline for growth and development. Room should be left for any necessary changes.
Goldie Wells: I served as a member of the steering committee for the Comprehensive Plan and I think that it should not be used as a loose guideline, but as a consequential guideline for growth and development of our city the next 25 years. It is a vision for our city that can be realized in the next 25 years if the guidelines are followed.
Ed Whitfield: I think it is a guideline that should be taken seriously but not rigidly. There is always space for public discussion and input.
Tom Phillips: It should be a guideline for growth and development. The term ‘loose’ is open to interpretation.
Mike Barber: (No response)
Joseph W. Rahenkamp Sr.: I don’t like to be tied down to anything that can’t be changed. I don’t think you should put a set rule that you can’t do this you can’t do that. I think you ought to look at each