Monday night’s long-awaited deliberation and vote (or non-vote as it turned out) on the Methodist Hospital planned development application was unusual to say the least. These are typically straightforward proceedings resulting in an up or down vote, often with conditions attached when a project is approved. This one didn’t go that way. As individual Council members stated their positions it was clear the proposal wouldn’t get enough votes to pass, but at the same time some members presented substantial modifications or even alternative designs they would vote for if the details could be worked out with the applicant.
Given those members’ interest in exploring such other possibilities, Council was reluctant to simply vote down the proposal in its entirety. Both because we hope Methodist will continue to engage with us, and also to avoid potentially running afoul of a rule that would impose a two-year waiting period before any reconsideration. But neither could we redesign the project on the fly from the dais, much less without input from the applicant or the public.
All of which led to a decidedly procedural, and decidedly unsatisfying outcome: a motion to postpone the matter indefinitely as a means of avoiding voting against it. In other words, “not yes” rather than “no.”
Given those members’ interest in exploring such other possibilities, Council was reluctant to simply vote down the proposal in its entirety. Both because we hope Methodist will continue to engage with us, and also to avoid potentially running afoul of a rule that would impose a two-year waiting period before any reconsideration. But neither could we redesign the project on the fly from the dais, much less without input from the applicant or the public.
All of which led to a decidedly procedural, and decidedly unsatisfying outcome: a motion to postpone the matter indefinitely as a means of avoiding voting against it. In other words, “not yes” rather than “no.”