HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-05-25 Public Comment - P. McGown - Public input must be priority and not ignoredFrom:Patty McGown
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Emma Bode; Douglas Fischer; Terry Cunningham;Erin George; Chuck Winn
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public input must be priority and not ignored
Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 12:28:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Commissioners and city planners
I'm writing today because this has gone too far. You made promises to my face at the meetings
in December 2024 and January 2025 that you would listen to residents. I have serious concernthat the public feedback on the UDC is being summarized inaccurately and therefore ignored,
before all feedback is even collected. This is wrong and slaps the face of the democraticprocess that you touted.
The staff memo that is attached to the Community Development Board agenda for the May 5,
2025 meeting is attempting to artificially limit the scope of the UDC rewrite, andmischaracterizes public input and feedback by blatantly omitting several important areas of
concern.
I spent valuable days during the holiday season attending face to face meetings with you,researching and reading, writing letters, and talking with neighbors as I went door to door,
only to read this memo and learn that none of it mattered! Why did you have me participate inengagement around the UDC's impact on the environment if your staff is now trying to
suggest, incorrectly, that this is beyond the scope of the project?
Updates to the UDC were being proposed as to be actual potential "code", which include theareas of environmental impacts. Residents have proposed code changes in all of the UDC
sections. However, the staff memo mischaracterizes these recommendations and relegatesthem from requested and recommended code changes to "plans". If the residents' input for
zoning code changes and updates and concerns are relegated to future "plans" they may neverbe codified. Plans are not code. This is unacceptable!
Furthermore, what is really frustrating to me after attending numerous meetings where
promises were made that residents would be listened to, public comment has been inaccuratelysummarized in the same staff memo:
The memo states, “Formatting - Comments to date on revised formatting have been positive
with people appreciating the increased graphics and organization.”
This is incorrect. I have written to you all about this major, serious issue numerous times. I,along with many community members, have repeatedly expressed disgust and dissatisfaction
with the inappropriate and misrepresentative images used in the draft UDC. These images donot accurately represent the mass and scale of proposed construction in the context of existing
neighborhoods. Come on! This is so insulting and just bad form. By using an axonometricview, rather than a street elevation of proposed building forms, the draft code hides the true
incompatibility of the proposed allowances with existing neighborhood conditions. THEDRAFT CODE IS HIDING THE ACTUAL INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE IMPACT OF
THE PROPOSED DENSITY INCREASES IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. This is
wrong. What if your children were trying to get away with this? I imagine you would be livid.Suffice it to say you are not listening to me or other residents.
Lastly, as I understand it, the staff memo also states, “Sustainability – Amendments proposed
in this area, such as urban agriculture, have received little comment. Compact development isalso an element of sustainability and comments relating to that overlap with the zoning
districts subject.”
This statement seems misleading because while the community may not have objected tourban agriculture, or electric vehicle charging stations, the above quote completely leaves out
any summary of public feedback relating to 1. solar access,
2. a deconstruction ordinance, 3. urban tree protections, or
4. water adequacy!
Suggesting that compact development is "sustainable" is an oversimplification.. It seems likean attempt by the city planners to force your high-density zoning agenda upon neighborhoods
at all costs, ignores the unsustainability of putting existing housing in the landfill, and ignoreshistoric preservation concerns that our community has voiced frequently! To name a few.
The most frustrating part is that it appears that residents are being deliberately ignored! It is a
slap in the face again. Ugh!! and it hurts.
If you are serious about rebuilding public trust, you need to address this behavior among yourstaff and the unpopularity of the charade of the zoning rewrite.
If you are serious about including residents who live in established neighborhoods then there
needs to be a PAUSE on the UDC process and a rebuilding of trust in the community. Letyour legacy be that you listened to the residents who live in Bozeman now, not the developers.
Thank you,
Patty McGown