Laserfiche WebLink
1 Fill the seat immediately. None of us bought the "we should delay" argument when President <br />Obama tried to appoint Merrick Garland. The same logic applies. They shouldn't buy it now <br />either. <br />1 views different organizations have change all the time. We shouldn't wait to elect a planning <br />commissioner based on anticipating changes of opinion city council will have. <br />1 a new leader will have to be a part of any decisions, best to bring them on ahead of time <br />1. The seat should not be empty. <br />2- 1 think 60 days before an election changes should wait but if it is more than 60 days they <br />should go about normal course of business and not hold things up. <br />1, those that are elected get to make the decisions when they come up. Don't the the <br />precedent set by republicans last session influence our way of governing. <br />Neutral/don't know: <br />+7 3 Build more housing. <br />+3 3 -but leaning towards immediate appointment. Where do you draw the line on how close <br />to an election things should be postponed? <br />+2 3. Regardless of the Commissioners choices, Council still has the final vote on development. <br />+1 They need to stop building We can't seethe sky anymore <br />+1 3 No idea. Both viewpoints seem reasonable. Not clear tome that planning commission <br />would be less effective with 6 vs 7 members. I guess I have a slight preference for filing the seat <br />earlier just to adhere to a norm of a full local government. <br />3, depends who wins. <br />3. 1 can see the merits of both arguments. <br />