2024-10-30 Tawn Keeney MD Testimony GP 2045

Home

understood proposals then that document should be retired at the conclusion of each administration rather than posited as a guidepost for a 20+ year period. And if such a document is of such fundamental importance to construction of societal rules, then its evolution should take place by amendment of the underlying document rather than reconstruction of a new document which allows only incomplete or limited understanding of how that document has transformed from what has proceeded it. If the document is reformulated as transformation rather than edited as transition from currently existing structure, then a full explanation of the rationale for each proposal should be available to the public. Even in the model of transition, an explanation of changes should be available to the public. The above considerations conclude that: A) The General Plan should not contain proposals where agreement will be subject to significant contention. Rather, such proposals or directives must first be considered and endorsed in their individuality. B) A General Plan should have clarity of transition from its predecessor. C) Unless contentious proposals are restricted, the timeframe of application of the document should be shortened, perhaps as much as to the term of the administration which has generated the document. This shortened timeframe in itself will encourage transition rather than transformation. The following statements of ‘Policy’ and ‘Priority Actions’ included in the Draft General Plan 2045 should be seen as exemplification of the above concerns. It is posited that these proposals, policies or advocated actions are contentious and should be removed, amended or explained in detail before the final draft of GP 2045 is constructed. My comments explain the elements of contention. I have only carefully addressed several of the sections of the Draft GP. P. 236 - “Adopt a land acquisition program with potential leaseback options for the purchase of hazard-prone locations or those with beneficial attributes for climate adaptation or mitigation.” Comment: This is extremely controversial, particularly in relation to sea-level rise, and I believe that this is not something that the public will bear. This feels like collusion between corporate or wealthy land owners and Administration. This is a directive which must be taken to the public in the form of a referendum before it is placed in the General Plan. This certainly would be reason for the County Council to defer ratification of the Draft General Plan. Proposals with this level of controversy should not be placed in the General Plan until they are taken to the people by referendum or, at least, the County Council. P. 78 - “Remove barriers to residential development in the appropriate districts to reduce development timelines, increase housing stock availability and increase affordability.” Comment: Yes, this is one approach, assuming that one is trying to accelerate residential development. Perhaps one needs to start by making the case for accelerating residential development. This is not a ‘given’. It is a ‘given’ that we need