Dunwoody Rezoning: T minus 7 hours and counting

It's finally here, the beginning of the zoning rewrite.  A standing group meeting on a large project has monopolized  my Tuesday nights so I doubt I'll be one of the throng at Dunwoody Baptist Church tonight.

Here's the news announcement from Patch:
http://dunwoody.patch.com/articles/city-begins-zoning-rewrite-process-tonight-with-public-input-meeting

Here's Duncan|Associates that Dunwoody City Hall hired for the project.  (No relation)
http://www.duncanassociates.com/index.php

Here's the guy heading up the project in Dunwoody.  You'll probably see him around tonight
http://www.duncanassociates.com/index.php?page=resume&resume=KirkBishop&name=Kirk%20Bishop&position=Vice-President

Here's his email address:  kirk@duncanassociates.com

The descriptions of the company's past projects aren't specific as to how they rewrote codes, only that they did to make them more internally consistent, streamlined, etc.  This is a good thing.  But there's no clue as to how they're going to implement that here.  As I type this there are closed door meetings happening with the usual groups, which will probably be speaking again at the public meeting tonight.

I've already posted what type of approach to zoning will benefit the most residents in the long term.

Specifically, a solid zoning code has to have a clear, practical definition of "nuisance".  Find a way to make that word an objective, measurable benchmark by which all activities and complaints are measured.  As long as "nuisance" is subjective, any ordinance built on it is a house of cards waiting to fall.

Every resident in Dunwoody wants their neighborhood to be an enjoyable one where it is peaceful to live.  The problem comes from the fact that there is no unified agreement as to what that entails.  There has always been a spectrum of opinions on what constitutes "residential" and that spectrum became clearer after incorporation.  My personal thing about home businesses is only one of the questions being raised.  Don't forget the "urban farmers", the "backyard chickens", the "alternate transportation" and other causes that are questioning the definition of a "residential" activity.  Those questions are not going away.  Fighting at City Hall every single time a new idea comes into fashion is a waste of the city's time and money and residents' energy.

There is one thing that will decimate a community's quality of life more than home businesses, more than backyard chickens, and more than any other "new" activity to be dreamed up.  That one thing is a reputation as "The City Of 'NO' ".  When the entire life of a city is defined by one group within it, and anyone deviating from it is considered an "auslander" to be avoided or suppressed you're going to end up attracting fewer and fewer people to be a part of the city.  The result is, the quality of life that is supposed to be preserved becones "groupthink" and crosses over into stagnation.  What some will find ironic is to preserve a certain lifestyle, it's necessary to find common ground and coexistence within that spectrum of thought.

Not every lifestyle or activity is going to be workable within the city.  I would like to see the starting point of the discussion be an attempt at coexistence, rather than immediate barriers to growth and differentiation.

For tonight, I hope those attending avoid three "H"s:
Hysteria
Hyperreaction
Hyperbole

Let's see if we can get through the night without overreacting to different opinions, dire warnings about "slippery slopes" or just making up a bunch of nonsense because someone doesn't like another idea.

Hell, if this ordinance code ends up getting written well enough, you might even convince me that chickens aren't so bad!

The Fine Print

Whenever John or the City posts documents, take some time to check them out.  I know a lot of this is dry analytical stuff but it's worth it to read over because it gives interesting insights into City Hall's perspective.

This caught my eye:  General Fund Resources & Uses Forecast

It starts out as an overview of economic conditions facing Dunwoody and a perspective on approaches to keeping the city financially solvent consistently as the economy fluctuates.

This quote from page 6 is worth pondering:

We benefit from a more educated work force.  The unemployment rate for those without post-secondary degrees is more than double those with post-secondary degrees.  Without doubt, it is my opinion our strongest weapon for fiscal resiliency is ensuring our labor market is trained and ready for growth while attracting those businesses that will hire our labor.  

No one will argue against the benefit of having large companies relocate to Dunwoody.  Large corporations provide a lot of jobs and a lot of benefits.  But a large portion of the city's business community is in small businesses and entrepreneurs - the things that create large businesses.  If our citizens are smart enough to be hired, are they not smart enough to create jobs as well?  If we are smart enough to attract corporations, are we not smart enough to create home-grown corporations  inside our borders?  There is no mention of the impact of the small business community in Dunwoody in this report, and nothing about intentions to create businesses at home, rather than just attract them from outside.

The economic growth we saw in the 2000s came from small businesses, not large corporations.  After an economic decline, like our recent recession, the small businesses were the first to recover.  Small businesses are a key indicator in economic recovery after a decline.

Does City Hall recognize this?  If so, where is that incorporated into the financial recommendations?  If not - why?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

How SOPA Can Affect Your Business and You (Yes, YOU!)

I'm not going to get into the flashy symbolic graphics or page-blocking JavaScript, or wax sadly poetic about the evil pall of censorship.

We're just going to keep this really simple for the small business owner who uses the Internet.

Start by reviewing this article from Mashable, with links to the full text of the bills and direct references in the analysis.

Another discussion in simpler terms and spelled out in the form of a hypothetical situation is available at the blog of Splendid Communications, a marketing firm catering to the wedding industry.

If you want it even simpler than that, here is an infographic.  (Be patient.  It's big.)

While much of the media focused on blocking foreign websites with bootlegged material or other malware (what I affectionately call "Chinese Takeout" due to the frequency of spam from that region) there are severe penalties for owners of US websites that are reported as "infringing".

Most people know next to nothing about copyright law.  The public has become so used to seeing frequent images that they ASSume they are public domain.  Very little is public domain.  So if you even unknowingly have information on your website that crosses a copyright line, however obscure, however subjective, a complaint will cut your bottom line off at the knees.  Online transactions and advertising can be blocked and you're relegated to the stone age.  That's just inadvertent infringement.  I'm not going to bother with deliberate theft that is passed on to an unknowing flunkie.  It's covered in the Splendid Communications article.

A precaution I always take as a web designer is a boilerplate statement in all of my contracts that once the site goes live and ownership of the completed code is turned over to the customer, that the customer is legally liable for all of the content on the site.  There are going to be webmasters thrown under the bus with a law like this:  "Hey, it's not my fault.  My web guy put it up.  Prosecute them!"  Not on my watch.

We're not just talking about commerce websites either, gang.  All of you blog owners out there:  John, Bob, Kerry, Rick, TOD, Paula, Cerebration, the other Bob, Donna, Lindsay, anybody else I missed - I know you're all reading this! - think about your comments section.  (Except for TOD who doesn't allow comments.)  You know how the spammers will sneak in their links by registering a Google ID, then posting some bland generic stuff on an old post and then a link to whatever it is they're hawking?  And it takes you a while to find it and delete it?  Under this bill, you're liable for that content.  If no one notices, you get lucky, you delete the comment and go on your way.  But if you miss it and someone complains, you're toast.  I don't know about you but I never feel that lucky.

It's a couple of bad bills that need to go back into committee.

BTW - to get around the Wikipedia blackout:  search your content and hover over the "stop" button on your browser.  The nanosecond the content loads, hit the stop button.  Read away.  The graphics and presentation of Wikipedia's point were good but the JS implementation was amateur-hour.