The age-old battle between complexity and column inches raged particularly strongly in recent weeks as I attempted to write about: (1) the Crosscreek Center hearing on 6/19 and (2) the first face-to-face debate between the Boone County Assessor candidates.
Perhaps I need to fine-tune my ability to synthesize, or it could simply be that these topics are just plain complicated and issue-laden. Whatever the case, I couldn’t condense everything I considered relevant into 10- and 30ish-inch articles (respectively), so I mention below some of the so-far neglected details I’d like to address in later articles:
Crosscreek Center:
The 6/19 public hearing (during which the Planning and Zoning Commission considered proposals for just two of the lots) was a mind-boggling event to witness, as so many issues came to a head all at once. In fact, some issues the P&Z Commission/staff expected to be contentious were practically left by the wayside once public hearing factored into the equation. These included the rezoning of a tiny fraction of the Taco Bell lot (which Tim Teddy did not consider to be a major issue), creek runoff, trees, and the fact that City Council had not yet approved Crosscreek’s “revised statement of intent” for the remainder of the site (TBD on July 7).
Public comments instead shifted the evening’s focus to a mediation agreement signed earlier in the day by one of the affected neighborhood associations. This added a whole new layer of complexity to the debate, mostly because (1) the agreement was for the entire site proposal, which was not yet on the table and (2) the other neighborhood association had not signed off on the mediation agreement. Ironically, the mediation agreement’s fortuitous (or not) timing seemed to push the Commission closer to its ultimate decision, which was to table the two sites until the next meeting.
Fortunately Jacob Barker and I had the chance to write a follow-up article about the mediation agreement. However, the fact remains that there are other issues lurking in the Crosscreek debate. Perhaps these will resurface when the Commission considers the site plan in its entirety on July 7.
Boone County Assessor race:
I covered the Muleskinners luncheon last Friday, during which incumbent Tom Schauwecker and challenger Barbara Bishop met for their first face-to-face debate. Even though my follow-up article was merely “event coverage,” it was still impossible to recap every issue that rose to the level of discussion.
Things I will explore more fully in my subsequent coverage of this race:
- the nature and use of sales disclosure forms (a.k.a. the “Certificate of Value” issue) in the state of Missouri
- the feasibility of changing the sales disclosure law, a possibility to which both candidates are open
- advertising the appeals process
- whether the law is really open to interpretation (as Bishop believes it is) when it comes to assessing vehicles using VINs
- 3M’s assessment appeal to the Missouri State Tax Commission, which has been the subject of at least one opinion letter in the Trib.
- a closer analysis of the Assessor’s reserve fund
- the composition of the Board of Equalization (which was actually not addressed at the luncheon, but is still a prominent campaign issue)
Filed under: City Government, County Government, Reporter's Notebook
Kristina,
You have done a great job of outlining the issues for follow-up. I was not at either meeting, but I generally keep up with these discussions off line. I’ve enjoyed reading your and Jacob’s work. Nice job.
Can you post a link to the mediation agreement. I’d like to read it.
Thanks.