City planners confused about Mall crossing

The debate surrounding a second vehicular crossing of the Downtown Mall just got a lot more confusing. What seemed like it would be a debate about the placement of the east end crossing instead rekindled some of the original project disagreement between City Council and the city Planning Commission.

Despite initial opposition in January 2006 from the Planning Commission, Council opted to open a Fourth Street crossing of the pedestrian Mall on a one-year trial basis. With the trial period well over and a Council decision that seemed to solidify a second crossing, it looked like the Commission was supposed to help determine the permanent location of the crossing—either on Fourth or Fifth Street—at its November 13 meeting. Still, Jim Tolbert, director of Neighborhood Development Services, recommended that the Commission defer discussion about the crossing, citing confusion about what exactly Council was asking the Commission to consider. After a short discussion, the Commission took Tolbert up on his recommendation.

According to Tolbert, his staff was under the impression that Council had not voted to permanently establish the crossing and that the Commission was charged to discuss whether an east end crossing fits with the city’s Comprehensive Plan, a document that guides long-term recommendations for the city’s growth.

Those who oppose the crossing, including Commission Chair William Lucy, argue that the project contradicts the city’s plans for encouraging pedestrian traffic on the mall, among other considerations.

"It’s much like the Bible," says Councilor Dave Norris, referring to the comp plan. "If you look hard enough you can find a justification for just about anything."

"I have not heard anyone that I can recall—including the councilors—say that they think there should be only one motor crossing on the Mall," warns Lucy. "Some of the arguments that have been made for the crossing would apply equally, if not more so, to two or three or four or five Mall crossings." The Comprehensive Plan, however, does not explicitly prohibit a vehicular crossing to the Mall, something which could hinder Lucy’s point of contention in future debate.

"It’s much like the Bible," says Councilor Dave Norris, referring to the comp plan. "If you look hard enough you can find a justification for just about anything. It’s not an exact science. Maybe it doesn’t necessarily need to be. That’s one of the reasons we have a Planning Commission."

C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to news@c-ville.com.