As the feedback from the local residents regarding the proposed I-435 development began to build, Alderman Plumb’s solution was to respond to all comments with a canned response vs actively engaging those impacted to find a compromise that would benefit all parties. His position was that there will be “multiple hurdles for the developer to clear” prior to any approval. This has proven to be repeatedly untrue. Simple examples of this include:
Alderman Plumb voted in favor of concessions to the developer to increase his profit yield against the original recommendations of the Planning and Zoning commission (PNZ). This included removing the need to the developer to seek final approval from the PNZ at a later date.
Not objecting to the city staff making preparations to hold an earlier Planning and Zoning commission hearing to attempt passage of the proposal before the published follow up date of 10/9/2018 (possibly at the request of the developer). This includes establishing an additional fallback meeting with only the minimal legally required notice to the public.