My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1991 09 17
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1991 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1991 09 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:33 PM
Creation date
6/16/2006 1:52:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
9/17/1991
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1991 09 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> .... <br /> got too many questions on the ballot and I've had <br /> several experiences with too many questions on the <br /> ballot. I think this would be good to sit down and settle <br /> this one issue. We have control over this issue because <br /> it is within our jurisdiction. I think what happens to W- <br /> 470 Authority; what happens in Northwest Parkway; all <br /> those other things we can attempt to make some kind of <br /> an effort in lobbying our position but we don't have <br /> direct control over them. I would personally like to <br /> stick with this issue and put this one behind us and see <br /> what happens. Then move on to the next one when it <br /> comes up. If the Northwest Parkway goes through <br /> during the next legislative session that will be up for a <br /> vote. People will be able to tell them whether they want <br /> a road or not. At this point, this is the one that affects <br /> us in what we do. I'd like to see this get clarified just <br /> on this one issue because I feel like if you dump a <br /> whole bunch of stuff on the ballot again -- people like <br /> simple questions. <br />Davidson: The only problem I have, John, if you could clarify it I <br /> wouldn't have a problem. On the airport access <br /> subcommittee we were looking at what I thought was a <br /> relatively simple proposal. Either some kind of route to <br /> the airport or not some kind of route to the airport. <br /> Before long we had twenty different options to consider. <br /> You couldn't just say yes or no. For instance, do you <br /> favor a beltway that goes through Louisville or do you <br /> favor a beltway? To me those are two completely <br /> different issues and if you just say do you favor a <br /> beltway, yes or no, the issue is still foggy. I think I <br /> would be willing to stand by the sUlvey the City took <br /> two years ago which showed it was about fifty-fifty. I <br /> believe if you just say a beltway without describing any <br /> route or method of payment that is probably about <br /> right. The minute you describe a route and method of <br /> payment some of those people who said I'm in favor of <br /> the general concept begin to say, no, because they don't <br /> want the route coming close to them or they don't want <br /> to pay for it. I don't know how you can quantify an <br /> issue for the ballot to give the Council any real guidance <br /> because it is such a fuzzy issue. For instance, the <br /> Northwest Parkway is a beltway after a fashion, well I <br /> think there was a lot of support for that. It even got the <br /> 6 <br /> -. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.