You want MUST. But first you MUST listen to common sense ....and unlike as is the case with your outside, overpriced consultants of all types (local and long distance), this is FREE advice. You see, it doesn’t have to cost buckets of money and be terribly expensive to be a good idea. Just like filet mignon isn’t the only decent cut of beef.

MUST is troublesome on several levels and one of its few pluses is it will supposedly set design standards. But right now, those who are talking about developing with MUST have upped their height requirements, and eminent domain is still lurking about with it’s best friend bogus blight...not a smart combination, nor is it a combination to embrace.....as is......

MUST needs height and setback regulation. Length of buildings is also at issue. Huge hulking buildings right on top of each other in Ardmore WILL create the feel of an urban canyon. And you have to take into consideration historic structures and contributing structures. Right now that is not being done sufficiently.

So, add this to chew on in your pot of ideas: 130' (one hundred and thirty feet) long only on street façades and tall buildings MUST be at least 300' (three hundred feet) apart with MUST. And let us not forget about those pesky set backs and human scale requirements. Contemplate that awhile.

And while you are thinking, consider the pre-existing residential and commercial dwellings. They are smaller in scale, and especially in Ardmore, much more humble abodes in the residential portion to be affected by MUST. MUST must incorporate more adequate melding of old and new. Do not just let grandiose new developments get plopped down like Jabba the Hut. Developers MUST be held to an irrevocable standard that if you are going to reduce citizen input with a MUST ordinance, the safeguards MUST be to citizen liking. Especially those folks that were there first. People matter. Stakeholders aren’t just those with deep pockets. Stakeholders are the little guy and gal who want to retire and live in peace, or who are young, and want to raise his or her family without constant issues and fear, and most importantly: IN AN AFFORDABLE HOME.

Parking. There is much parking silliness with MUST. We have terribly bad, fiscally irresponsible, over priced mass transit. People around here drive. That is not going to change just because you propose MUST. So, while you are planning all these fab concrete complexes, where are your people going to park? The folks who truly lack credibility are the ones who come out with preposterous blanket statements like MUST will encourage people to take mass transit. That statement was as laughable as when one person in particular said that if you don’t like MUST you like credibility and then went one step further to ask that MUST have been passed last week when it wasn’t legal to do so, even if you wanted to....but we digress....

And here you thought we were merely nay sayers...or so has been implied ever so not so subtly.

We’re not nay sayers and won’t be watered down as such. Face it, we have good reason to hold things as suspect. And MUST as it is currently written IS suspect. More importantly? The longer eminent domain for private gain and bogus blight designations exist, the harder and longer it will be for you to even get the citizenry to get comfortable with MUST.

You all claim there is no eminent domain around or in MUST, so put your money where your mouths are and take eminent domain for private gain away and repeal the bogus blight designations in a district you all helped decree historic. Then maybe people will talk about liking or getting used to MUST. It’s not a guarantee of course, but it is common sense avenue to explore. And it is just an opinion, a theory if you will. And it’s not just in Ardmore people don’t like MUST - it’s Bala, Wynnewood (where it could come up again soon as you can say Merriman), Haverford, and so on and so forth.

Y’all can’t have it both ways. You want the dog to play ball, then throw the dog a bone. As it stands right now, you are merely creating more wasteful controversy.