Fairhope, Alabama
BACK ON AGENDA MONDAY
During a discussion at a city council meeting last month about pursuing a conservation easement for the city's 100+ acre 'Dyas Triangle' property on the north side of town, Week's Bay Foundation executive director Yael Girad cited multiple benefits, among them "increasing property values and desirability of living in the area." (see video below)
While we do not seriously think that either are being driven in this case by personal gain, it would be prudent for all if the two city councilmen living there, Burrell on Alice Lane and Brown on Creek Drive, did not participate in any more discussion, or any vote on the matter ... to avoid possible conflict of interest complaints and more litigation against the city down the road. Better safe than sorry later.
In similar circumstances in the past, we like to remember former city councilman/FBI agent Dan Stankoski's often-repeated mantra taught by his boss J. Edgar Hoover back in the day ... to "not only avoid impropriety ... but also any appearance of it."
We have full confidence that the remaining three councilors -- Conyers, Boone, and Robinson -- are perfectly-capable of deciding the matter satisfactorily.
While the Times questions its necessity and financial prudence (considerable asset value will be lost), we do not oppose the easement itself if city attorneys give their blessings and the majority wants to move forward, as long as it is crafted in a fashion to allow full recreational access to all Fairhope citizens who chipped in to finance the $8.7+ million purchase back in 2013; the mayor's proposal to delay and seek current public sentiment for the use of the property through a new planning initiative coming later this year is reasonable as well: we hope a suitable compromise may be worked out this time.
BACK ON AGENDA MONDAY
 |
| Girad standing |
While we do not seriously think that either are being driven in this case by personal gain, it would be prudent for all if the two city councilmen living there, Burrell on Alice Lane and Brown on Creek Drive, did not participate in any more discussion, or any vote on the matter ... to avoid possible conflict of interest complaints and more litigation against the city down the road. Better safe than sorry later.
In similar circumstances in the past, we like to remember former city councilman/FBI agent Dan Stankoski's often-repeated mantra taught by his boss J. Edgar Hoover back in the day ... to "not only avoid impropriety ... but also any appearance of it."
We have full confidence that the remaining three councilors -- Conyers, Boone, and Robinson -- are perfectly-capable of deciding the matter satisfactorily.
While the Times questions its necessity and financial prudence (considerable asset value will be lost), we do not oppose the easement itself if city attorneys give their blessings and the majority wants to move forward, as long as it is crafted in a fashion to allow full recreational access to all Fairhope citizens who chipped in to finance the $8.7+ million purchase back in 2013; the mayor's proposal to delay and seek current public sentiment for the use of the property through a new planning initiative coming later this year is reasonable as well: we hope a suitable compromise may be worked out this time.
Comments
Just make a nice city park out of it like any other.
If it belongs to the City, why can't we just keep it undeveloped until the time comes that there is a good reason to either sell it or develop it into some type of recreational vehicle? I don't trust Diana Brewer or Jack Burrell as far as I could throw the two of them together. Something is rotten here.