"We are agreeing to meet the supermajority standards the plan opponents are asking for..."

Of course they are! The entire council are Dems, and some are afraid of the Mayor, so of course the super majority vote is going to vote in favor of the plan.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Call it what it is. This is just politicking.

Doug,

You couldn't be more correct. The reason ALL of the council members were elected over incumbents is due to the Fact they supported the Waterfront Plan.......

Those against it were simply not re-elected for their opposition to the plan.

why do you have to develop every square inch of the earth. let te land become the flood zone it once was.

It's about time we put this whole debate behind us, and moved forward with the Waterfront plan. A Council majority, affirmed by a majority in the last election, approved the plan after years of public debate and dozens of open meetings. Only a minority -- and they may even be a minority in this ol' Democrat's neighborhood of Old Town -- continue in a rear-guard action in the courts to stop progress toward a revitalized Waterfront. Even Andrew McD has apparently shifted his focus west about a mile to the old Carver school -- he can finally admit he's been beaten. Let's move forward, together, to a great (albeit not perfect-- but what is?) Waterfront that can be the crown jewel of our great City. Regards, E. Warfield

It is clear to me that the elected Democrats benefited greatly from the votes of Democrats living in the city who took the Democratic list handed out at every polling place and voted it in its entirety, in many cases not even knowing the names of the Council candidates. This was especially apparent to me since I spent the entire day at the polls. It is also interesting that the one candidate, who expressed reservations about the plan, Allison Silverberg, was the high vote getter. Mr. Smedberg, the lowest vote getter, was the Council member most closely identified with support for the plan. This Council can take this foolish, premature action if it so chooses. When they must run for office again in three years, there will be no popular national Democrat on the ballot with them.

It may not be this simple anymore.

Silberberg got the most votes since she ran as a Dem but got Republican votes for her opposition to the waterfront plan. She also came out against several other developments, as populists do. She said that the plan for the waterfront was not "visionary". Sounds like Boyd and Andrew. Glib. But what is her vision? The only thing she mentioned is a band shell - which we already have behind the Torpedo Factory and is never used!

I do agree with Katy who formerly said it is about time the city tear down the buildings along the Strand it bought with open space funds.

Actually I am pleased that the building formerly used as the arms dealer's retail outlet will be preserved. It was built in the 30s or 40s, but it is a part of our historic fabric. I was only annoyed that after the city bought it, several years ago, it was allowed to continue as the worse looking building on the waterfront. I understand it will now have a long term lease for a restaurant and the lease holder will renovate it. I have always thought that building behind the Torpedo Factory was a gazebo. It's much too small to hold a band.

With redevelopment then Old Town can benefit from casino spillover into Old Town from Gaylord's across the river. And let's talk about trucks,cars and buses getting down to this new waterfront. This will certainly add to Old Town - nothing good in my opinion

Sure - everyone wants to say in casino and not take boat across river for dinner, go for drinks or to stay at hotel . The waterfront is to increase tax revenue - just by chance a casino is going in across the river.

If the plaintiffs in the lawsuits (which are now pointless given the super-majority on council who support the WFP voted on last year) would withdraw them, then this action would not be necessary.

This is the only responsible action for council to take. Why waste taxpayer dollars defending lawsuits, which – even if the city loses – will have no impact on anything?

This recent city move actually makes a stronger case for a review by the Virginia Supreme Court.
The Protest Petition process should be available to everyone within the city. Those who wrote the "text" or "map" provision in the current ordinance did so in order to ensure that everyone, regardless of a boundary change or a language change had access to the process.
By limiting the entry rule to only one or the other, there in no equity. Unless you can foresee all future conditions, you do not want to limit access. The intent of the Protest Petition is make it a last resort open to all residents, not a portion of them.