CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Joanne Blackburn | 4/12/2008 9:01:26 PM |
| This is extraneous. There are sufficient code definitions in place which may be used for any purpose without this language being 'added'. The Girdwood Board of Supervisors are affirming for their discreet geographical area only which does NOT include the Portage Community Council areas south of Girdwood. Property in this area will be negatively impacted by this attempted power grab by those who choose not to identify their agenda. Let's use the ordinance language currently in place instead of this added PLI language. Otherwise this is a cheap shot at private property owners adjacent Portage Community Council. I'd advise the assembly that the Girdwood Board of Supervisors only "represent" interests within the Girdwood "bowl". Millions of dollars flow into that bowl every year. Other community council areas need a little attention and we in the Portage Community Council DO NOT want this extraneous ordinance AT ALL because it is a backdoor way to usurp our voices and control of our own neighborhood within Anchorage. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. | |
| Joanne Blackburn | 4/12/2008 8:46:47 PM |
| This is a poor idea. Public use buildings should not conform to a rustic standard to meet a federal agency idea of cheapness. In 1964 all the buildings were demolished by the earthquake. Instead this is exactly the area where where the buildings should meet the minimum safety codes adopted by the state of Alaska. "Girdwood" comments only are authorized for the Girdwood area not the Portage/TwentyMile area. If this is intended to to cause properties to build to rustic rather than minimum safety codes contained with in the building code then I as a property owner object due to the foolishness of this idea. All public buildings within Anchorage MUST meet the minimum safety codes adopted by the state and ratified by the municipal assembly. No exceptions. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. | |
| Doreen Sullivan | 5/6/2007 12:32:54 PM |
| This ordinance wouldn't be proposed if there weren't specific properties in mind. Why aren't those properties listed as examples. What types of properties are examples of public purposes? The public needs more examples and geographic case specific information not something with a huge loophole like this. | |
| Steven Ellis | 2/1/2007 9:55:34 AM |
| The proposed ordinace has to be posted with the announcement. Why should I have to call and waste the time of a Muni employee to send me a copy of the ordinance. It should already be available. Ordinance changes should should provide the current ordinace, the proposed changes and the possible impacts. | |
| David Evans | 1/29/2007 8:33:11 AM |
| Why can't a copy of the proposed ordinance be included in "Cases Online"? | |