George,

The discussion about the Meadow Creek Parkway has taken an interesting turn with the call for an advisory referendum. While I could support an advisory referendum on a subject on which the Council, current or past, has been unable to come to agreement, that is not the case with the Parkway. The Council has a decision in hand on the Parkway. It was hammered out, publicly debated, and voted for by the Council led by Virginia Daugherty, and subsequently modified by a Council led by Blake Caravati. (Both Ms. Richards and Mr. Caravati were involved in formulating the agreement). That decision was to build the road if certain conditions were met. The conditions set forth by the Council were designed to protect the City's interests (their charge as duly elected Councilors) and alleviate conditions on Route 29.

The conditions in the agreement are (Caravati letter 12/11/00):

- A limited access, two-lane, naturally contoured road, with bike and pedestrian lanes, a maximum speed of 37.25 mph, and no cell towers.
- Commitment of funds to a workable tight urban design for the Rte. 250 intersection.
- Additional parkland (adjacent 50 acres) and a new lake or pond, combining storm water management, environmental sustainability, and aesthetic appeal.
- Evidence of commitment to an Eastern Connector through a regional transportation plan.

These conditions have not been met. What has led to the need to abandon these conditions developed in the context of public trust? The public deserves an answer to that and the following questions before we go into various contortions to avoid the constitutional requirement of four (4) votes for the sale of the property and/or hold an advisory referendum.

A referendum is an expensive and potentially even more divisive proposition. Before undertaking the expense and risk further dividing the community, we need to know:

1. What negotiations are/have been underway to achieve our conditions?
2. Have the negotiations failed to the point that we must abandon this agreement with City citizens?
3. If negotiations have failed, must we abandon our conditions or is there some other course of action?
4. Are the people with whom we are negotiating giving up any of their conditions, keeping the playing field level?
5. What are the consequences of abandoning the agreement?
6. What protection will the City have from these consequences?
7. Why have some members of the City Council abandoned an agreement to which they were party and which they in fact help craft?
8. Will there be a formal vote to declare the agreement void?

Until we have answers to these questions and a rationale for abandoning the agreement, a call for an advisory referendum is a red herring and a needless expense.

Nancy K. O'Brien (electronic mail, February 3, 2004)