To the editor:
In the May 12, 2011 edition of the Times, planning commission Chair John Komoroske defended the obstinate support of their waterfront plan draft by exploring six myths opponents embrace, but each only refutes his claim of their being myths.
To the charge the waterfront plan draft mimics National Harbor, Komoroske insists the planning commissions draft is blushingly modest, as if hes embarrassed by its modesty. This single word exposes the chairs ulterior attraction to the National Harbor model.
To the charge of insufficient citizen input, Komoroske points to more than 100 meetings, but what good are meetings if planners have already made up their minds and only listen to citizen input without giving it fair consideration? In such a circumstance, citizens have no more real opportunity to have input than if these meetings were not held at all.
To the charge that hotels will add congestion and traffic, Komoroske spends eight column inches dancing around the obvious conclusion that any development at all will add congestion and traffic. Politely unspoken, even by most plan supporters, are concerns about City Halls ability to competently manage the traffic in an already over-congested area.
To the charge that the plan will add 14 new restaurants, Komoroske insists current zoning already allows them, missing the plans raison detre: the restaurants have not yet materialized because they need the density the plan provides to be potentially viable.
To the charge that the city should develop museums, Komoroske all but says the city already has enough museums and historic sites. Museums are not a myth, but a responsible, respectable alternative vision for a historic waterfront. That the chair would so dismissively brush it off shows how out-of-touch Komoroske is with the public.
Komoroske could have spared readers 40 column inches of rhetoric to sum up why he voted for the waterfront plan draft in a single sentence: Let them eat cake!
To the editor: