Take two thick slices of Noonie's day old bread, smear Honey Cup honey mustard
liberally over both. Cover both slices with green leaf lettuce. Then on one slice only lay smoked turkey on the lettuce,
a tomato slice on the turkey and sprinkle it with shredded carrot. Then on the lay a slice of provolone cheese over the
carrot then a green pepper ring on top of the cheese. Sprikle with sprouts. Cover with the other slice, lettuce side down.
The letuce should be stuck to the bread with honey mustard so it doesn't fall off when you turn it upside down to cover the
sandwich. Slice sandwich in half with a knife. Wrap in tightly in plastic wrap. Use too much wrap. Tape on label. Tadaaa!
Weighs one pound. Costs Four Bucks.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses
yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your
teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed,
to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Ethan Allen Tower
"During the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton
sometimes spoke of a 'twofer' (two for the price of one) presidency,
implying that Hillary would play an important role in his
administration."
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Duis ligula lorem,
consequat eget, tristique nec, auctor quis, purus. Vivamus ut sem. Fusce aliquam nunc vitae purus.
Whatever things
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Duis ligula lorem,
consequat eget, tristique nec, auctor quis, purus. Vivamus ut sem. Fusce aliquam nunc vitae purus.
To paraphrase Kurt Wright, this is not a question that can get a straightforward yes or no answer. If I'm thinking of more affordable housing developed downtown, then I would pick "yes" (even mixed-use - businesses and housing - buildings would be a "yes" as my choice). If it's just for more business development downtown, I'd go with "no." If increased height allowances happen, we must remind city council and the governing committees/boards of their shameful role in the horrible Westlake/Marriott fiasco and its ultimate outcome with no affordable housing.
The answer should be "yes" for both housing and commercial development. The Westlake proposal (just like the developmnent at the corner of Colelge and Battery) will result in affordable housing at other sites because of the negotiated contribution. Westlake and the Marriot have contributed significantly to the city's property tax revenues. They are relatively successful urban projects in a city that needs more truly urban development. Burlington grows up or it dies -- and Chittenden County gets devoured by sprawl in the process.
From today's Village Green FPF: CITY COUNCIL MEETING REPORT By Paul Decelles, City Councilor - Ward 7, Gosse Court, pdecelles@comcast.net Mon, 09 March 2009
5 City Councilors!...
Tonight is the first time since being first elected to represent Ward 7 that I can say I am embarrassed by actions that were taken this evening at our meeting. As many of you are aware by forums that were sent out by Linda Deliduka and Councilor Ellis from Ward 4 we were to discuss and hold public hearings on Zoning issues. Our meeting began with an extremely long public forum that lasted almost ninety minutes. We never in a sense began out meeting until a quarter past nine. Discussions then ensued on some of the Zoning issues. Of particular importance was changes to our Ordinance to allow commercial buildings to go from 105 feet to 127 feet. As Councilor Ellis eluded to in his posting. But he blatantly and inaccurately clamed this request came from pressure by developers. This could not be further from the truth. The work the Ad hoc committee and Planning commission came up with was from advice from Developers that you could not actually build a 10 story building at 105 ft.
What happened next was the most was the most appalling part of the evening. Councilor Berezniak, Councilor Adrian, Ellis, Shannon, and Montroll began to filibuster the meeting until we reached 10:30 pm. At that time our rules state we need to suspend our rules to continue past that time. This action needs a 2/3 vote. All five of these Councilors voted to end our meeting. tonight was a public hearing that needing to be warned so we could take action our March 30 meeting. We changed our regularly schedule meeting on March 23 to accommodate the legal guidelines that are in our Charter. By these Councilors ending our meeting short we will more then likely not have another opportunity to take action on these critical issues. What is reprehensible is in front of a large crowd of citizens and representatives from Champlain College, Fletcher Allen and UVM this measure destroyed action for our next meeting. The Ad Hoc committee along with the planning commission have spent almost this entire last year working on very important zoning issues that could alleviate some of the tax burden we are all suffering from. Everyone of the City Councilors knew that we would be taking action on these zoning issues this Council year. In my opinion these Councilors acted immaturely and irresponsibly by killing the chance to even discuss these amendments any further. I always try to do what I think is best for Ward 7 and then what is best for the City as a whole. I try to put politics aside and vote issues on there merits rather then ideological views. Once again I am ashamed at the actions these 5 Councilors took. I have never agreed with other Councilors all of the time but I always have respected there views and actions they take to do what they think is best for our city. Tonight I have lost a lot of that respect for these 5 Councilors that threw away an entire years hard work because they may have not been happy with the out comes of the Votes that would have taken place at our next meeting.
Thanks, Paul for reporting on this. How is it that the Burlington Democrats have become so opposed to basic means to encourage economic development and a vital downtown? The list of Andy Montroll's supporters in the mayor's race reads like a who's who of Burlington NIMBYs.
Why the rush to pass the zoning amendment now? Because it will not pass when the new council is seated. Aren't the new councilors the true representatives of the voters and not the lame duck councilors?
Mr. Decelles might want to have someone proofread his posts and also wait 24 hours before posting. Anger might die down. The Burlington Democrats on City Council are not any more embarassing than the Republicans and Progressives on this issue.
There's no rush to pass the zoning amendment now. This is the end of a year-long process. The vote should be taken by councilors who hammered the thing together, heard the testimony, and discussed the issues. Burlington Dems on the council are an embarassment. But what's worse is that they'll stall or stop much needed development in our city.
I respectfully disagree Eddy. This amendment was a surprise out of an ad-hoc committee that was put together to address the residential/commercial requirements for buildings in the downtown corridor. Other than the City Council meeting public comment period, there has been no input.
You mitakenly assume that because the Dem's do not support the amendment they are not in favor of increasing the height limits. Shannon's amendment which increased the height was voted down.
MORE ON DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHTS By Russ Ellis, City Councilor - Ward 4, NPA Steering Committee Member - Wards 4 and 7, Shore Rd, rrellis@burlingtontelecom.net Wed, 11 March 2009
Progress Report on Downtown Building Heights:
Last Monday night, after a City Council meeting which began at 6:30 p.m., the controversial issue of building heights was being vigorously discussed four hours later at 10:30 p.m. Council rules require that meetings conclude at that time unless 2/3 of the Council votes to suspend the rules. I joined with those who voted against suspending the rules. I felt that the complicated issues still to be addressed, which, in addition to building heights, included UVM and Champlain College ordinances and Memorandums of Understanding, deserved consideration by a less exhausted Council. Wisely, the meeting was concluded.
In response to that situation, the Mayor has called for a special meeting of the Council this Thursday night, March 12, to take action on the issues listed above. It is my impression that despite a very large turn-out during the Public Forum expressing wide-spread opposition to raising building heights to 127', and despite reports from me and several other Councilors that we had received an unprecedented number of contacts from our constituents voicing opposition, there is a strong possibility that a majority of the Council will endorse the increase Thursday night.
The rationale for increasing the height of buildings (residential and commercial) is to raise Burlington's population and increase its tax base. The rational for opposing the increase is to preserve the nature and feel of our city and the magnificent vistas of the Lake which we cherish and which attract many people to our city.
It is my opinion that a majority of our citizens are not convinced that it is a good idea to raise building heights to 127' down town. The public is raising important concerns which should be heard. Likewise, members of the Planning Commission have reported that they were not given time to address issues that have been raised. There is no compelling reason why this issue has to be resolved before newly elected Council members are installed next month.
I appreciate the e-mails and telephone calls that I have received from many of you. I have received so many that it has become impossible for me to acknowledge each one of them individually. That is why I am thanking you through the Front Porch Forum. Russ Ellis
The sad thing is that a vote to "preserve nature" will only put development pressure on the remaining agricultural lands of Chittenden County. I also note that speaker after speaker who opposed the height extension to "preserve the vistas" live in relatively new buildings that blocked somebody else's view when they were built.
The dems and the rest of the "anti-growth" advocates in this city must realize that Burlington and, more importantly, Chittenden County will continue to grow. If we do not find ways to accommodate that growth in Burlington the result will be less green space in Chittenden County. In other words, by being so closed minding about growth, you are forcing potential businesses and residents alike to seek space elsewhere and it is far cheaper to develop a greenfield than it is to renovate a building in Burlington.
So, I agree, the "preserving nature" argument is invalid and misleading. By voting down the height increases, you are destroying nature. We are not a special case unlike other cities our size, I wish the council would start taking the ENTIRE population's wellbeing into account not just their hill-section neighbors.
"Councilor Berezniak, Councilor Adrian, Ellis, Shannon, and Montroll began to filibuster the meeting until we reached 10:30 pm."
What a blatant lie...the meeting was going along just fine as far as I could tell from the Ch. 17 replay, but then there were simply not enough votes to continue the meeting. It's very, very apparent that some of the Burlington City Councilors that are "retiring" wanted to ram through some zoning changes before they left the Council. Well, not that's not apparently going to happen...boo hoo...it doesn't mean that the entire process has been scrapped IMO.
"Why the rush to pass the zoning amendment now? Because it will not pass when the new council is seated."
Exactly...the "alliance" between some Burlington GOP & Progressive City Councilors has been broken by the voters, period.
"It is my opinion that a majority of our citizens are not convinced that it is a good idea to raise building heights to 127' down town"
...but a certain few lame ducks will try & ram it through anyways...what a joke!
I don't see anything inherently bad about tall buildings.
Funny enough I was just on the eleventh floor of Decker Towers at 230 Saint Paul Street today. That's the top floor of the tallest building in Vermont.
They must want to make the ceilings higher if they need 127' for ten stories.
Whatever. 127' is fine. It's only about a dozen feet higher than Decker.
Based on the past history of polls on this site (Dan Smith crushing his opponents by unheard of margins), it is safe to say the people who post here don't represent the majority of people in Burlington. I'm glad to see the Progs and Republicans get along so well here: just like they do on the council. Nice and cozy to affirm you white privileged lives together.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click Sticker to get one.
Yours free with Paypal donation of any amount.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury,
shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States,
than according to the rules of the common law.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses
yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your
teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed,
to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
-Emma Lazarus, 1883
--------------------------
Church Street Energy System
--------------------------
Powered by
"The Medium is the Message."
Whatever things
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Duis ligula lorem,
consequat eget, tristique nec, auctor quis, purus. Vivamus ut sem. Fusce aliquam nunc vitae purus.
Whatever things
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Duis ligula lorem,
consequat eget, tristique nec, auctor quis, purus. Vivamus ut sem. Fusce aliquam nunc vitae purus.
To paraphrase Kurt Wright, this is not a question that can get a straightforward yes or no answer.
If I'm thinking of more affordable housing developed downtown, then I would pick "yes" (even mixed-use - businesses and housing - buildings would be a "yes" as my choice). If it's just for more business development downtown, I'd go with "no." If increased height allowances happen, we must remind city council and the governing committees/boards of their shameful role in the horrible Westlake/Marriott fiasco and its ultimate outcome with no affordable housing.