Tulsa World sues Bates

[Bledsoe]

Is the Tulsa World a "public figure?"  Looks like to me this will be decided on a case by case basis, but it is legal decision for the courts to decide--not a jury.  As far as I can tell no Oklahoma appeals court has addressed the corporation as a public figure question.  Here is a case from the Fifth Circuit that tries to establish some guidelines.

See,  Snead v. Redland Aggregates Ltd., 998 F.2d 1325, 1329 (5th Cir.1993):


"First, we must decide whether Redland and Standard are public or private figures. 5 As one court observed in a much-quoted passage, trying to decide whether a particular plaintiff is a public or private figure "is much like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall." Rosanova v. Playboy Enters., 411 F.Supp. 440, 443 (S.D.Ga.1976), aff'd, 580 F.2d 859 (5th Cir.1978). The inquiry becomes even more difficult when the libel plaintiff is a corporation, as our prior cases do not establish a method for determining whether a corporation is a public or private figure. Golden Bear Distrib. Sys. v. Chase Revel, Inc., 708 F.2d 944 (5th Cir.1983) (finding that a corporation was a private figure without developing a test for that inquiry).

       Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 344-45, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3009, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), the Court gave two policy justifications for differentiating between public and private figures. First, public figures "enjoy significantly greater access to the channels of effective communication and hence have a more realistic opportunity to counteract false statements than private individuals normally enjoy. Private individuals are therefore more vulnerable to injury, and the state interest in protecting them is correspondingly greater." Id. at 344, 94 S.Ct. at 3009. Second, public figures normally have thrust themselves into the public eye, inviting closer scrutiny than might otherwise be the case. In other words, public figures "invite attention and comment." Id. at 344-45, 94 S.Ct. at 3009.

       These justifications for the public/private dichotomy do not suggest a general rule to be applied to corporations. 6 As to the first criteria, corporations do not necessarily have greater access to the channels of effective communication than do individuals. Some corporations, such as media corporations or large conglomerates, obviously have such access, but the bulk of corporations do not. Similarly, the second criteria does not suggest a generalization for corporations. Although some corporations voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye, the majority of corporations do not.

       Because the two Gertz justifications for the public figure/private figure dichotomy do not suggest a general rule to be applied to corporations, the inquiry must be made on a case-by-case basis, examining all the relevant facts and circumstances. We suggest several factors here but we do not suggest that these are the only factors to consider.

       First, the notoriety of the corporation to the average individual in the relevant geographical area is relevant. Notoriety will be affected by many factors, such as the size and nationality of the corporation. Here, we safely can assume that the majority of Americans has never heard of Redland or Standard. Although they are not small corporations, they are alien corporations that apparently have no United States subsidiaries.

       Second, the nature of the corporation's business must be considered. Redland mines stone, and Standard builds railroad cars. Corporations in these businesses do not ordinarily become household names. Prominent consumer goods makers or merchants, as well as consumer service corporations, are much more likely to attain public figure status.

       Third, courts should consider the frequency and intensity of media scrutiny that a corporation normally receives. For example, even a small corporation that does not deal with consumers might attain notoriety if it engages in frequent corporate takeovers that become widely publicized. In this case, the
record contains no evidence that Redland or Standard have received significant past publicity. 7 On the basis of these factors, we conclude that Redland and Standard should be deemed private figures."

_________________________________

IMO--based on the above standard I would conclude the the Tulsa World is probably a "public figure" on this issue.

This means that they have a really high standard of proof.  More on this high standard later.

[tim huntzinger]

Discovery goes both ways.  Who was the source for the article? Specifically the stuff about salaries and memberships.  That is personal information.  Wonder how Keith Panticzek would feel about publishing his staff's salaries? Bates? Anyway, I wonder if the impetus was the source for this sensitive information, and Lorton is smokin' out his moles.

Bates is a liar. After I busted his chops when he yelled/shouted/freaked out at one of the river tax meetings (video evidence here) he said he saw me do the same thing at a meeting.  Liar!

Bates and Panticzek are no better than Lorton and all their posing is a joke.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

I think you are making an apology for an entity that doesn't deserve one.  The World's sins predate the 80s oil collapse.  The World has pushed an agenda of economic diversification since the mid 70s when they should have led a fight to retain as much of the oil business as we could.  We are paying dearly for that mistake today.

The World has pushed development at the cost of our historic neighborhoods and buildings.  I believe they are singularly responsible for the lack of historic preservation.  They are singularly responsible for Tulsa dropping the ball on zoning and design integrity for our new neighbors.  Under their watch Tulsa Beautiful has become Tulsa Not So Beautiful.  Tulsa Strip Mall Ugly.

A paper shapes what a town believes itself.  And of course, you are right, they are not alone.  They are joined by other local moneyed families – a group that is without imagination or ideas.  It is a group that led us into our current predicament and a group that cannot lead us out of this mess even if they wanted to.  

Like I've said before, "Can we trade in our rich folks?"

I don't like major decisions about Tulsa being made in back rooms.  I want elected officials to make decisions about Tulsa's future and I want a full debate of the issues covered by the local newspaper.

I want a paper that understands the value of criticism without labeling anyone who disagrees with their agenda a naysayer.

Its odd that you say what your saying. I was on another forum where the discussion was on Detroit. I mentioned that during the 80s the writing was on the wall for both Detroit and Tulsa that they needed to diversify away from being mainly a one industry town. Tulsa did and we have done better for it. Detroit did not and have been and are paying for it. I also dont think there was much we could have done to stem the tide of oil industries leaving. There are bigger dogs out there with more pull than we have. I dont want to be the Bartlesville to their Houston and forever have our economy at the mercy of big oils every whim. Every high, followed by a devastating crash.

As for historic preservation etc. Everyone has some responsibility for that. Mostly I would say its those groups who profess to try to change it,,, and dont. I have been to COHN meetings for instance and listened to them put out extreme agendas with no chance of happening... and years later, nothing has happened. You have push hard but also compromise and take the small steps when you can get them. Not hold to an extreme hard line and never get anywhere. Brookside has created an infill plan. Jamie has made progress in the Pearl. Neither is perfect, nor exactly what everyone wants, BUT they have made progress in the direction they want, because they were willing to see the reality of the situation at hand and compromise when neccessary to make some progress.

However, I do agree that the TW has also done something similar. It seems they sometimes back the wrong pony and also do not see the "reality of the situation" and are unwilling to compromise. They, and the "monied elite" whatever that is, have things they want,,, and they have every right to want the things they want as anyone else does. We cant have a city that only has what the poor and working class folk want. For as soon as anyone makes it to where they are making any money or have different lifestyle tastes,,, if they then find the city unattractive to them, they will leave or not move here in the first place. EVERYONE should have a place here in Tulsa. And of course each side is going to fight for what they want. Duh. Where things often go wrong is when we dont see the compromise solutions or when we dont pay attention to the other sides needs and desires as well. I have seen both sides make the same stubborn mistakes and thus stifle progress.

As pertaining to infill. Some old neighborhoods and areas can be completely protected and have only "perfectly appropriate" infill. Some can be mixed. Some even completely redone. For that way there will be something for everyone. Thats the way a city should be. Some people like living in a neighborhood that, for instance, has only old world styled buildings that look as if they have been there forever.... And Tulsa should be able to offer that. Some people like an ecclectic mix, old and new... And Tulsa should be able to offer that. Some people really like contemporary/urban loft type things and want to be in a neighborhood with primarily that type of stuff...And Tulsa should be able to offer that as well. But there seem to be opposite sides in Tulsa that will not back down and compromise, that only want ALL the old neighborhoods to be their way or the highway. Thats an unrealistic expectation, so you run into a hard wall that is almost impossible to push down and no real progress gets made.

[Bledsoe]

If the Tulsa World is a "public figure" then this is what it must allege and prove, from:

Herbert v. Oklahoma Christian Coalition, Inc., 1999 OK 90, 992 P.2d 322

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=35657&hits=

__________________________

" ¶14 We would begin by pointing out that the statements in the Voter Guide about plaintiff cannot be proven "true" or "false" because they are defendant's opinions or conclusions based upon its review of plaintiff's votes on certain issues and on materials from other organizations.

¶15 If a statement of 'opinion' on a matter of public concern reasonably implies false and defamatory facts regarding public figures or officials, those individuals must show that such statements were made with knowledge of their false implications or with reckless disregard of their truth. Milkovich v Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20, 110 S.Ct. at 2695. 2706-7, 111 L.Ed.2d 1, 19 (1990). Defendant's statements in the case at bar cannot 'reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts' about an individual. See, Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20, 110 S.Ct. at 2706, 111 L.Ed.2d at 18. The statements are in the nature of a non-actionable "judgmental statement" which is opinionative and not factual in nature. Price v. Walters, 1996 OK 63, 918 P.2d 1370.

¶16 The United States Supreme Court, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), placed a formidable burden on a public figure plaintiff seeking to recover for defamation. New York Times requires that a public figure suing for defamation must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the allegedly false defamatory publication was made with "actual malice." The Court stated:

"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 726.

This Court reiterated the New York Times standard in Hart v. Blalock, 1997 OK 8 ¶9, 932 P.2d 1124, 1126 (Okla. 1997) and stated that absent proof of actual knowledge of the falsity of a third party's accusations, Blalock's republication of those accusations was not actionable.

¶17It is undisputed that the plaintiff in the case at bar is a public figure. Accordingly, the New York Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" standard applies. Therefore, plaintiff had the burden of presenting sufficient evidentiary material from which a trier of fact could find or infer, by applying the clear and convincing evidence test, that the defendant was aware that its statements were false, or that it published them with reckless disregard of whether they were false. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

¶18 The question whether the evidence in the record in a defamation case is sufficient to support a finding of actual malice is a question of law for the reviewing court. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 510-511, 104 S.Ct. 1939, 1965, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984). It has been said that judges, as expositors of the Constitution, have a duty to independently decide whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to cross the constitutional threshold that bars the entry of any judgment that is not supported by clear and convincing proof of actual malice. Id. As to summary judgment, the United States Supreme Court has held that a court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must be guided by the New York Times "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard in determining whether a genuine issue of actual malice exists--that is, whether the evidence presented is such that a reasonable jury might find that actual malice had been shown with convincing clarity. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 257, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514-15, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

¶19 The "actual malice" standard to be met by the public figure plaintiff is a formidable one.6 This Court has said that when public figures such as political candidates sue for libel or slander, their rights to recover are severely limited. Hart v. Blalock, 932 P.2d 1124, 1126 (Okla. 1997). "Actual malice" requires, for example, "false statements made with [a] high degree of awareness of their probable falsity." Garrison v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74, 85 S.Ct. 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). Failure to conduct a thorough investigation is not a sufficient basis to establish actual malice. Jurkowski v. Crawley, 637 P.2d 56, 61 (Okla. 1981). Negligence is not enough to rise to the level of "actual malice," and malice may not be inferred simply from a showing that the publication was untrue.

¶20 It is not enough to show that the publisher acted negligently. Garrison, 379 U.S. at 79, 85 S.Ct. at 218; New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 288, 84 S.Ct. at 730 That the publisher acted out of ill will, hatred or a desire to injure the official is not enough to establish actual malice. Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing donkey'n. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 10-11, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 1540, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970); See also, Garrison v State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. at 73-74, 85 S.Ct. at 215. That the publisher acted in reliance on the unverified statement of a third party, without having personal knowledge of the subject matter of the defamatory statement is not enough. See, St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 730-1, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1325-26, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968).

¶21 The fact that the publisher failed to undertake an investigation that would have been made by a reasonably prudent person is not enough. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc,, 418 U.S. 323, 332, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3003, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. at 731, 88 S.Ct. at 1325; New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 287-88, 84 S.Ct. at 730. Likewise, malice is not established where there is evidence to show that the publisher acted on a reasonable belief that the defamatory material was substantially correct and there was no evidence to impeach the publisher's good faith. New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 286, 84 S.Ct. at 729.

¶22 Actual malice cannot be established merely by showing that the publication was erroneous, derogatory or untrue. Capital-Gazette Newspaper, Inc. v. Stack, 445 A.2d 1038, 1044 (Md. 1982), cert.den. 459 U.S. 989 (1982), citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323, 340-41, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3007, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1326, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968); New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 281, 84 S.Ct. at 726."

____________________________

Looks like a pretty tall mountian to climb.  Thoughts?

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

If the Tulsa World is a "public figure" then this is what they must allege and prove, from:

Herbert v. Oklahoma Christian Coalition, Inc., 1999 OK 90, 992 P.2d 322


Looks like a pretty tall mountian to climb.  Thoughts?

I would rather read a patent. I hate reading patents.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Discovery goes both ways.  Who was the source for the article? Specifically the stuff about salaries and memberships.  That is personal information.  Wonder how Keith Panticzek would feel about publishing his staff's salaries? Bates? Anyway, I wonder if the impetus was the source for this sensitive information, and Lorton is smokin' out his moles.

Bates is a liar. After I busted his chops when he yelled/shouted/freaked out at one of the river tax meetings (video evidence here) he said he saw me do the same thing at a meeting.  Liar!

Bates and Panticzek are no better than Lorton and all their posing is a joke.

Man, don't sugar coat it next time.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

Here is the actual lawsuit:

http://www.tulsaworld.com//webextra/content/items/suit0116.PDF

Thanks for the link. The lawsuit reads more like a tortious interference with contractual relations (between World and its subscribers) cause of action than defamation.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

National Headlines:  

MAN bites DOG!!!!!

Newspaper sues Newspaper!!!

SLATE:
David vs. Goliath in Tulsa
Why Tulsa's daily paper will regret suing the city's alternative weekly for libel.

http://www.slate.com/id/2208981/

Well, if SLATE says the World will regret its lawsuit, then that should end the debate about who is right and wrong.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

I think you are making an apology for an entity that doesn't deserve one.  The World's sins predate the 80s oil collapse.  The World has pushed an agenda of economic diversification since the mid 70s when they should have led a fight to retain as much of the oil business as we could.  We are paying dearly for that mistake today.

The World has pushed development at the cost of our historic neighborhoods and buildings.  I believe they are singularly responsible for the lack of historic preservation.  They are singularly responsible for Tulsa dropping the ball on zoning and design integrity for our new neighbors.  Under their watch Tulsa Beautiful has become Tulsa Not So Beautiful.  Tulsa Strip Mall Ugly.

A paper shapes what a town believes itself.  And of course, you are right, they are not alone.  They are joined by other local moneyed families – a group that is without imagination or ideas.  It is a group that led us into our current predicament and a group that cannot lead us out of this mess even if they wanted to.  

Like I've said before, "Can we trade in our rich folks?"

I don't like major decisions about Tulsa being made in back rooms.  I want elected officials to make decisions about Tulsa's future and I want a full debate of the issues covered by the local newspaper.

I want a paper that understands the value of criticism without labeling anyone who disagrees with their agenda a naysayer.

As for historic preservation etc. Everyone has some responsibility for that. Mostly I would say its those groups who profess to try to change it,,, and dont. I have been to COHN meetings for instance and listened to them put out extreme agendas with no chance of happening... and years later, nothing has happened. You have push hard but also compromise and take the small steps when you can get them. Not hold to an extreme hard line and never get anywhere. Brookside has created an infill plan. Jamie has made progress in the Pearl. Neither is perfect, nor exactly what everyone wants, BUT they have made progress in the direction they want, because they were willing to see the reality of the situation at hand and compromise when neccessary to make some progress.

That is asinine. Conservation districts were a compromise that would allow infill that is less restrictive than straight HP zoning but would give some protection against the anything goes development we've seen.

BTW, I remember Jameson quipping to the local media that he was incensed that he didn't get 60 million worth of pork for his string of pearls in the last 3rd penny extension. If that's not an extreme hard line, I don't know what is. Especially, when you consider all the resources the pearl has been given to date like the TIF district and diverted street funding for their plans, for instance. Where is the flood of private development that we were promised would occur if these resources were allocated? Instead of the promised results there have only been excuses for a lack of these promised results and more requests for more public funding. It reminds me of the TARP bailout. Not to mention the fact that Jameson's promises of providing affordable housing options when being awarded the contract to develop the area by the infill task force within his development have been minimal at best, and that is generous euphemism for what has occurred.

BTW, I still want to know how form based codes will provide pedestrian friendly drive through banks, fast food joints(think Sonic), car washes, etc. Use should still play a role in zoning and the major flaw with form based codes is they provide almost any use, anywhere. One more disgusting trend about New Urbanist/Form Based development is pattern of going into predominately lower class, working class, and middle class areas, economically cleansing the areas of the commercial and residential properties to replace them with real estate that effectively prices those classes out of the market. I don't think these classes should have their tax dollars funding the economic apartheid being waged against them, especially when the tax funding primarily comes from regressive sales taxes that are a deeper burden to bear for these classes than the upper classes who are ultimately the beneficiaries of these taxpayer subsidized luxury lifestyles.

[Renaissance]

A newspaper is not a public figure.  Certainly, not for the purposes of this suit.  If you want to call the World a public figure, every single media source in the country is the same.  Delivering public dialogue is not the same as being its subject.  

I'll say this--any newspaper bringing a libel suit against another newspaper is either very dumb or very desperate.  I'm going with both on this one.

Hope they're ready to show their exact circulation figures in open court.

[waterboy]

Tim, it isn't hard to get info on World inside operations from current or former employees. When I worked there, I once gained access and printed the salary structure of the entire advertising department back in the 80's. We found it quite by accident and were stunned at what we saw. It would have been the basis for a pretty good discrimination lawsuit as women were routinely paid a fraction of men with the same background and experience. Of course there were no African American employees and only a few Native Americans.

Same goes with circulation and readership info. After they jettisoned the Tribune, circulation suffered. It was widely suspected that when they dropped membership in the Audit Bureau of Circulation that it was because of unflattering figures surfacing or inability to meet requirements of reporting. The ABC was owned by member newspapers much like Arbitron is for electronic, so that was a red flag for competitors. They have the right to choose who or what is reported and in what manner, it just raised questions.

There are many employees who bristled under their Viking management style and their brutal treatment of competitors. I doubt the editorial staff was any different. Even though the work was lucrative and fairly easy, many qualified employees decided to salvage their personal dignity and move on. Having said that, they probably are no different in management style than any other family owned media business.

If anyone thinks UT is any different with the truthfulness of their distribution, readership and business practices you are mislead. They cannot stand up to the scrutiny of a lawsuit that will expose them. KS is part of the extended family having worked for NPC management and sent packing. There are grudges, ambition, politics and advertising money at play here. He should settle and move on.

Artist, you continue to perplex me. There is no balance of wealth, middle class and working class in Tulsa. The development issues are overwhelmingly skewed to wealth and power. Not even close. But your view that intransigence by the parties in their positions is causing no movement is not clearly thought out. Small steps occur because of strongly held views. Jameson is not soft in his promotion of form based zoning. Infill developers are succeeding because of their strongly held views that the owner of a property has the right to do with it whatever they please. It is precisely the strong, sometimes overdone, advocacy of rights that effects any change at all. Otherwise, who needs attorneys?

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Double A


I remember Jameson quipping to the local media that he was incensed that he didn't get 60 million worth of pork for his string of pearls in the last 3rd penny extension. If that's not an extreme hard line, I don't know what is. Especially, when you consider all the resources the pearl has been given to date like the TIF district and diverted street funding for their plans, for instance. Where is the flood of private development that we were promised would occur if these resources were allocated? Instead of the promised results there have only been excuses for a lack of these promised results and more requests for more public funding. It reminds me of the TARP bailout. Not to mention the fact that Jameson's promises of providing affordable housing options when being awarded the contract to develop the area by the infill task force within his development have been minimal at best, and that is generous euphemism for what has occurred.

BOO-YAH!! SNAP! RIGHT ON! Grab yer crayons, arteest! U've been BOMBED!

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Tim, it isn't hard to get info on World inside operations from current or former employees.

True dat, but specifically who leaked?

This whole thing makes Jr. look more and more like Richard Roberts.

[waterboy]

Is it possible that a newspaper columnist may be forced to reveal his sources...by another newspaper?

Most likely someone very low level and with suspect credentials. When you want to know whats happening in a company, talk to the low level folks who are pretty much ignored like wallpaper. But it could be a former pressman. They are the ones who know the real press runs. Former executives screwed the union pretty severely years ago. I know of at least one former composing employee who won a suit against them.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by Double A


I remember Jameson quipping to the local media that he was incensed that he didn't get 60 million worth of pork for his string of pearls in the last 3rd penny extension. If that's not an extreme hard line, I don't know what is. Especially, when you consider all the resources the pearl has been given to date like the TIF district and diverted street funding for their plans, for instance. Where is the flood of private development that we were promised would occur if these resources were allocated? Instead of the promised results there have only been excuses for a lack of these promised results and more requests for more public funding. It reminds me of the TARP bailout. Not to mention the fact that Jameson's promises of providing affordable housing options when being awarded the contract to develop the area by the infill task force within his development have been minimal at best, and that is generous euphemism for what has occurred.

BOO-YAH!! SNAP! RIGHT ON! Grab yer crayons, arteest! U've been BOMBED!

I have noooooo idea what your trying to say lol? Do you think what I said was right? or wrong? lol

I see Jamie as an example of the "little guy" getting people in his area together, pushing for what he wants and slowly getting it. He is no different than you or me. But through tenacity, not getting everything he wants, but dreaming big and making progress step, by step, by little step, often to the consternation of those in power. And able to take partial progress over not getting everything all at once.

Lets look at the Channels... The "big boys" wanted to garner support for it, but werent going to compromise or listen. It was all or nothing. And they got nothing.

Lets look at some neighborhood preservation groups like COHN. It appears to me that there is a middle way where they could garner enough support to make some progress. But they will not budge on their hard line, thus they do not get either enough people in their neighborhoods, or among the development community to join with them... ergo no progress whatsoever.

Look at the Brookside infill plan. You can tell just by looking at the renderings and maps they created that there was a lot of compromise going on. The Bomasada thing brought those differences to the fore. Some people do not want hardly any change at all. Some people would love to see a lot more than what the plan allows for. The plan shows the middle ground. Bomasada development pushed the limit, and exceeded that middle ground,,, but it could only exceed by so much for there was a plan there limiting the exceptions. The developer would have wanted 5 or 6 ideally. Some people may have been perfectly fine with that or even 10 or 15 stories... But what they got was an exception for 4 stories. Nobody completely happy, but the middle, or close to it, held. Without the Brookside plan in place, no telling what could happen. At least they have a plan which puts limits on the exceptions and compromises. Things can only fluctuate so far from that middle ground.

If in Mapleridge they agreed that, no we dont want the older historic homes torn down, the ones that originally set the over all character of this neighborhood, but we dont mind if some little infill house built in the 70s or 80s were torn down and replaced... I think there might could be some progress on making an agreement to that effect. But the side against tear downs and infill in that neighborhood tend to be against ANY and ALL tear downs at all. I dont think they are ever going to be able to rally enough support from the neighbors or the developers, the media, etc. to get something that strict in place. Thus all homes 1920s or 1970s are still in danger. Then there is the other issue of what goes back in to replace the torn down homes. A compromise position, even just making some tiny progress at first, say "wall plane scale" not design, could be seen as a positive to many people.

Cherry Street... Seems there are people still fighting against the contemporary infill on the South Side. The developer has contained that type of development to that side and not done any,(that I know of) on the North side of Cherry Street. Rather than the more likely scenario of joining with the developer, and neighbors to get something passed solely on the north side. The crowd pushing for some sort of moratorium want it stopped on both sides. Thus alienating the developers and many of the people in the area,,, not ever quite getting enough support to get anything done. Its all or nothing, no compromise. One could argue, that at least in this case the developers are doing the compromise on their own. That wont hold if some new developer comes in and eyes the north side of Cherry Street and doesn't have the same sense of compromise.

Sorry to be inserting a second line of conversation into the thread lol.