Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Kraft stated that if the issue is expertise then he does not see why it should even <br />be limited to property owners of University City. So as far as he is concerned the <br />impasse is property owners or non-property owners and if Council is willing to set a <br />limit of one non-residential owner he would agree to that. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr stated that she already had a non-residential property owner in mind, so <br />limiting it to only one might exclude her from being able to make her appointment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft suggested that appointments be made on a first-come, first-serve basis. Ms. <br />Carr stated that she did not want to be limited in that manner. Mr. Kraft stated that he <br />would be willing to stipulate that he would not appoint a non-resident and maybe <br />everyone else would be agreeable to doing the same. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow suggested that each ward be limited to one non-resident appointment, which <br />would then expand the number to three. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft stated that if the criterion is expertise, then its expertise and he has no <br />problem with that as experts can be from anywhere. But philosophically there should <br />be no non-resident owners because the issue is who are we representing here? He <br />stated that if Council is representing the people here who are residents, then that <br />means you live here. But if you’re saying that some of the people that you represent <br />are taxpayers who don’t live here, you’re basically setting up this kind of tea-party stuff. <br />He stated that this would be a poll tax, sort of like saying that you can’t vote; you can’t <br />be on this Board unless you pay taxes in University City, and he does not think that <br />that is right. Mr. Kraft stated in his opinion, residents should get first dibs, but he is <br />willing to compromise and agree to the appointment of one non-resident. He found it <br />hard to believe that a Councilmember could not find a tax expert who was a resident of <br />University City. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr stated that no one was talking about a poll tax or the elimination of people <br />who did not pay taxes. It’s about the appointment of individuals who have a vested <br />interest. Because when Washington University does not pay school taxes the District <br />is still entitled to that money and so we all pay more to make up for the amount of <br />money that is lost. Ms. Carr stated that she has someone in mind who she believes <br />can bring a specific set of skills to the table that she cannot find anywhere else, but <br />someone else may have an entirely different reason for their selection. She stated that <br />she is not trying to prescribe how any Councilmembers should view this and she is a <br />little offended by the statement about poll taxes because she is not talking about <br />excluding anyone. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch stated that she believes there are a lot of differences between the two <br />proposals that need to be discussed. She stated that the bullet points in each <br />resolution appear to be very similar, and if the subcommittee lands closer to the <br />language contained in Mr. Kraft’s proposal she would have less concerns about having <br />non-residents on the Board, because it seems to be focusing on very specific issues. <br />She noted Ms. Carr’s, “Be it resolved” paragraph and the mention of land use policy <br />experts, opens the discussion up to something totally different, beyond financial <br />impact, and she is not comfortable with that. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />