The nonprofit OPEN Louisville Inc. has released the results of its mayoral questionnaire that include responses from Democrat Greg Fischer and Republican Hal Heiner on OPEN’s trademark (and acronymned) issues of open government, historic preservation, environmental stewardship and celebrating neighborhoods.
Each candidate was asked the same 10 questions, which ranged from land-use matters and zoning regulations to opening MSD projects to public review, resulting in long-winded non-answers from Fischer and succinct answers from Heiner. In fact, Fischer didn’t answer any of the questions, which allow the candidates to mark “Yes” or “No” in a fashion similar to fifth grade social studies tests, whereas Heiner technically answered 80 percent of them.
You can read the entire questionnaire and the candidates’ responses after the jump.
1. Would you support a change in zoning procedure which would require notice to neighbors and neighborhood associations of new zoning and development-related applications as soon as they are received by Planning & Design Services?
Fischer: No answer. “I favor a system that assures early adequate notice and that places all zoning and related applications and files online. Transparency in all aspects of the public’s business is good.”
Heiner: Yes
OPEN’s Position: Yes. “These applications are records open to the public according to a 2005 Open Records Decision by the Kentucky Attorney General. However, there is currently no requirement to notify neighbors of their existence until much later in the zoning process. OPEN supports a system of immediate notice.”
2. Would you support a change in zoning procedure which would require that any binding elements or conditions of approval that are part of an ordinance passed by the Metro Council can only be amended by the Metro Council?
Fischer: No answer. “If, from time to time, the Metro Council decides to impose binding elements of its own, the amendment of which it reserves unto itself, that is its prerogative. However, the Planning Commission has the background, expertise and time to much better handle the primary function of imposing binding elements and occasionally amending the binding elements it agrees to accept. It is the Planning Commission which, by statute, is given the authority to enforce binding elements and to hold hearings and impose penalties in that regard.”
Heiner: Yes. “To the extent there are significant changes to use, intensity or buffer.”
OPEN’s Position: Yes. “OPEN believes that the Land Development Code has improperly delegated the legislative authority of the Metro Council to the Planning Commission. This allows a rezoning ordinance which includes mandatory binding elements to be amended by a committee of the Planning Commission with no final say by the Metro Council. OPEN believes only the Council can amend legislation of any kind.”
3. Would you support a procedural change in zoning cases which would allow opponents equal rebuttal time to applicants in zoning hearings?
Fischer: No answer. “As a matter of fundamental fairness, the applicant has a recognized right to have the final “say” before a vote is taken. The process of allowing rebuttal to occur in this way seems to have worked relatively well. It is hard to create a system that makes everyone happy but as respects the right of rebuttal, I think that the current process, on balance, has served the community reasonably well.”
Heiner: No answer. “Generally supportive, however I commit to study this issue before supporting the change.”
OPEN’s Position: Yes. “The current procedure gives an applicant from 17-50% more time to make its case than the neighbors get. OPEN believes the time allotted should be equal.”
4. Would you support an amendment to the Historic Landmarks ordinance which would allow the Landmarks Commission to hold a hearing on landmarking an historic site upon recommendation of its staff?
Fischer: No answer. “I think that the current process is broken and makes decisions on the protection of our City’s history unnecessarily adversarial and contentious. If certain land and buildings merit consideration for historic landmark protection, then the government, should initiate protections proactively, not reactively. Whether it is because of a government assessment or a citizen petition, the say on whether to hold a hearing and to pursue a property’s landmark status should be one of the government’s. I am willing to bet that, in many instances, historically important properties can be saved, in this way, through agreements between the private property owners and the government well before a property’s historical significance is proposed to be changed or destroyed and without pitting people against each other, as is almost always the case with the way that landmarking is currently achieved.”
Heiner: No answer. “I will commit to study this issue and its effects before supporting this amendment.”
OPEN’s Position: Yes. “Certain historic buildings and sites that almost all would agree should be protected are never landmarked until a last-minute flurry of activity when a demolition permit is pending. OPEN believes a more orderly process should include a regular analysis of such potential sites before a big controversy has started.”
5. Would you increase funding to the Department of Planning and Design Services so that applications for zoning-related changes and other services may be processed faster and more efficiently?
Fischer: No answer. “I am committed to speeding zoning applications and other Planning and Design services, but I believe we can increase productivity, improve services, and reduce costs without increasing funding – by giving Metro employees more training and involving them and their ideas for a better system.”
Heiner: Yes
OPEN’s Position: Yes. “OPEN believes that any delays in the zoning process are caused by a shortage of staffing and funding at Planning and Design Services or other Metro agencies. Only in rare instances does neighborhood involvement cause unplanned delays. Everyone could benefit from a smoother, more efficient process as long as neighborhood involvement begins at first application.”
6. Would you support a system that places all zoning-related applications and files on-line for the public to see?
Fischer: No answer “See answer to #1 above.”
Heiner: Yes
OPEN’s Position: Yes “OPEN believes the public will have greater knowledge and chance for input if applications are on-line from the beginning.”
7. Would you support an amendment to the Land Development Code which would protect those smaller creeks and streams which feed the “blue-line” and larger streams?
Fischer: No answer “I certainly support efforts to protect our creeks and streams, however I don’t believe that requires already amending the relatively brand new Cornerstone 2020 Land Development Code, which the community worked for over a decade to write and enact. I believe it means enforcing the LDC as it exists.”
Heiner: No “New EPA regulations will bring about these protections within the next 12 months without supplemental local ordinances.”
Open’s Position: Yes “The current Land Development Code protects only a few of our major creeks. OPEN believes that the smaller tributaries that feed these streams are just as important.”
8. Would you support an overlay district for the Floyds Fork area currently under study which would set additional development guidelines in order to protect the rural nature of that area?
Fischer: No answer “Of course, I support protections of Floyds Fork. Protections for the area surrounding Floyds Fork are included in the new Land Development Code. The creation of and development around The Parklands of Floyds Fork is a once in a lifetime opportunity for this community. I believe we can be the global standard in how to responsibly build an urban edge – the ultimate in green infrastructure.”
Heiner: No answer “I will commit to study additional development guidelines to protect the character of the area.”
OPEN’s Position: Yes “The proposed Floyds Fork Area Study has many “recommendations” on preserving the rural character of the area around Floyds Fork and our wonderful new Parklands of Floyds Fork, but there are no teeth that would prevent the same old suburban-style development we have seen for years. OPEN believes an overlay district with stricter guidelines should be adopted.”
9. Would you support a change in the Land Development Code which would put a greater emphasis on retaining existing natural tree canopy and understory?
Fischer: No answer “I believe the Land Development Code needs to be enforced, not revised again. That said, I am a huge advocate for our urban forest, recognizing its positive impact on our health, environment, economy, and recreational opportunities. I have committed to partnering with the private and non-profit sectors to plant 10,000 new trees across Jefferson County in my first term.”
Heiner: No “Cornerstone 2020 has already made major advances in protecting and providing tree canopy. We need more trees in our community, which will be among my initiatives for the future.”
OPEN’s Position: Yes “The current system allows the destruction of mature trees and understory with the promise of replacing it with small trees. Because of the importance of protecting the existing vegetation for stormwater control, air pollution control, wildlife habitat and scenic viewshed, OPEN believes stricter controls on vegetation destruction should be implemented.”
10. Would you support requiring all MSD sewer construction projects to be done only after a public hearing and after competitive bidding?
Fischer: No answer “Obviously I believe in competitive bidding of government projects, and I also obviously believe, as stated above, in government transparency. But to slow the protection of our environment (whether it be by way constructing new sanitary sewers, eliminating defective sewer plants or pumping stations, instituting new flood control measures, or building better drainage systems) by subjecting everything MSD does to a public hearing would not be in the community’s and our environment’s best interest.”
Heiner: Yes “I am a supporter of public involvement and competitive bidding. I will commit to study this issue to determine the effects on small scale projects, however I do support on large scale projects.”
OPEN’s Position: Yes “Recently, private developers have been constructing new sewer facilities in our community and turning them over to MSD through recapture agreements that have no advance public hearings and no bidding process. OPEN believes this is in violation of the Kentucky Constitution and should be stopped.”
11. Would you support a model lighting ordinance for Louisville Metro that would require all new lighting to be fully shielded and dark-sky compliant, thus saving electricity costs, providing better security, reducing dangerous glare and protecting the dark night sky?
Fischer: No answer “I support efforts to combat light pollution, including enforcement of the community lighting standards in the Land Development Code, which apply Metro-wide. However, given the dire state of the economy I do not support adding an extra layer of regulation and imposing additional costs on consumers and small businesses struggling to stay afloat.”
Heiner: Yes “Generally supportive, however, we can not compromise security or business needs in commercial areas.”
OPEN’s Position: Yes The current code allows lighting, especially street lighting, that is wasteful, unsafe, harmful to human visibility, harmful to wildlife and destructive of the dark night sky. OPEN believes that adopting modern restrictions on any new lighting will eventually help this problem.