Author Topic: Minor victory in Sandy Springs  (Read 2466 times)

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,770
Minor victory in Sandy Springs
« on: May 22, 2009, 00:01 »
The scientologist lawyer has asked for a deferral.  He wants 60 days to do a parking study.  If the deferral is approved, this gives us another 60 days to educate people.

The next meeting is the Mayor and City Council meeting, and it will be the mayor who decides whether to grant the deferral, or to approve or not approve the zoning request.

The planning commission was not buying the complete story he told, and asked some hard questions, including some that were danced around unanswered.  I'm sure the evasion did not escape unnoticed; the planning commission seemed like a bunch of bright guys.  It will be the planning commission who makes a recommendation to the mayor and city council.

There were a number of local scientologists in the audience, but none of them spoke.  Ultrapoet got in a really good zinger, which was picked up on by one of the commissioners.  There is more to tell, which I will either leave up to Ultra, or post myself later when I've had more opportunity to digest it all.  Full video will be available once it can be digitized and uploaded.

   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline SocialTransparency

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 1,326
Re: Minor victory in Sandy Springs
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2009, 05:55 »
Its 5:45 a.m . I am off to my long and much needed film shoot which will enable me to be free financially for the rest of the summer. I must say i am very happy in the way all this is going down. Once i have finished this particular film job, i will be back in full activism mode. Kudos' to all of you who have gone that extra mile. RESPECT.

It was and has always been my opinion the parking was going to be an issue. That and the fact the sci,s would not provide a capacity cap. The 60 day deferral is a legal tactic, to buy more time . This issue is about potential growth. Never has the lawyer for the sci,s address this. 

Offline Stutroup

  • Supressive Person
  • Posts: 436
Re: Minor victory in Sandy Springs
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2009, 18:55 »
I just read what's here and at another forum, about the same issue.  All I can say is this is a success!  These next sixty days will be productive for the critics of the cult, and not so much for Scientology.  They'll need to find a way to pay for two places at once -- one they can't even use! (Sandy Springs, of course)

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,770
Re: Minor victory in Sandy Springs
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2009, 19:36 »
Of course, an issue that can be raised with a parking study done now is that because they know what to do for the study, it will not be an unbiased study.  The scientologists will make a point of carpooling 4 to a car, since they know they need to appear to do that on a regular basis, even though we who protest across the street know that they do not.  That will be a nice little thing to mention to the Planning Commission and the Mayor/City Council.

Although everyone present agreed to the proposed deferral, it is my understanding that the Mayor will have to approve it at next month's meeting for it to actually be deferred.  She (Mayor Eva Galambos) may decide to deny the whole rezoning application instead.  That would be nice.  We were told by Trish Thompson (Council of Neighborhoods) that there was a recommendation by Community Development (Nancy Leathers) to approve the rezoning request but with so many required restrictions that it would be impossible for scientology to meet the restrictions.  Trish mentioned that the proposed restrictions were listed on "the website" but I didn't catch where on what website.  Ultra, do you know where the restrictions are posted?

I would also like to see the posts on the other forum copied over here by their authors, on the open Atlanta, Ga. board.  I would do it, but it wouldn't look right when the authors are here too.

Things are looking good for us in Sandy Springs.  I wonder when the lease runs out in Dunwoody.   ;)
« Last Edit: May 29, 2009, 14:04 by alias »
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline SocialTransparency

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 1,326
Re: Minor victory in Sandy Springs
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2009, 17:22 »
 Using a last ditch effort to locate the " Chapel/Sauna" In the basement of the building opens up a major can-o- worms, code wise.

 Fire code being first and foremost. Did you know the building does NOT meet curtain 2009 fire codes @ this time/ fire suppression/sprinkler system etc. Did you know a whole class of codes need to be met regarding "Egress" from a below ground structure?

 The whole reasoning behind NOT locating the sauna/chapel on the 1ST floor has nothing to do with the 75 lb per sq ft load bearing issue.

 The issue is the massive cost of bringing the 1ST floor load bearing ability up to present code of 100 lbs per sq ft. It is quite apparent C of S of Ga does not have the funds to do this improvement to bring the building up to minimum code.

 Having said this, how will C of S of Ga bring the basement up to code??? Then there is the issue of C of S of Ga reapplying for a new structural design plan, as the current plan tabled for the 1ST floor seems to be null and void. Has Legal introduced a "NEW" architectural plan for this "Basement Build out? Heck. Has anyone seem an actual approved architectural plan for the first floor?

 One must understand, when applying for a structural zoning variance, many layers of criteria have to be met. Kind of a back to square one affair.

 It is of my opinion, parking is the least of the issues here. The main building has sat for sometime now. The building as it stands today, does not meet current state and local zoning codes for its intended use.

 Couple this with a group of parishioners that have been drained dry financially from the purchase of the building lends itself to what i think will be their undoing. C of S of Ga does not have the financial depth to bring the building up to current state and local codes.

 It is possible to borrow against the equity inherent with the alleged cash purchase of the building, yet @ the end of the day, who really owns this building? And would they want to jeopardize the financial health of said property for a handful of parishioners? In a non growth environment? The legal rep for this issue states scientology has a very small congregation, yet the basic meeting of code from a financial stand point would tax this already burdened flock further.

 It will be very interesting to see what outcome this issue has. It is one thing to "Pass" a zoning variance with conditions. It is much harder to "Enforce " those conditions once the variance has been approved. I dearly hope this is on the minds of the zoning commission and city council.

Offline Lorelei

  • Hill 10 Situation
  • Posts: 895
  • I can haz ferret.
Re: Minor victory in Sandy Springs
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2009, 00:48 »
It strikes me as ironic that the downfall of the CoS resettling in ATL probably won't be the "parishoner' deaths, fraud, spying, intimidation, harassment, human rights abuses, etc., but their inability to locate an appropriate building and finance the necessary & required legal upgrades to cover zoning/bldg. codes.

This underscores the successes civil, rather than criminal, litigants (vs. the cult) appear to be having lately. Parallels Mafiosos on trial, actually; they get brought down by tax evasion (like Al Capone) / RICO charges, mostly, and not murder or other equally serious crimes. Perhaps we should have figured out sooner that civil, not criminal, prosecution was the better tactic to take!

Turns out that "WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES?!" is a FAIL of a technique for both Scilons AND their critics, whereas "attack (legally as a plaintiff!), never defend" is working a treat.

/small jokes
"Once the foundation of a revolution has been laid down, it is almost always
in the next generation that the revolution is accomplished." -- Jean d'Alembert

The Human Wiki.
"I spend hours surfing the web for information, so you don't have to!"

Offline mefree

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 4,369
Re: Minor victory in Sandy Springs
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2009, 12:32 »
I never thought about this like that. Very interesting to consider and very poor planning on their part. 
The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis.
-Dalai Lama

Offline Aquaman

  • Met Xenu
  • Posts: 44
Re: Minor victory in Sandy Springs
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2009, 18:55 »
It strikes me as ironic that the downfall of the CoS resettling in ATL probably won't be the "parishoner' deaths, fraud, spying, intimidation, harassment, human rights abuses, etc., but their inability to locate an appropriate building and finance the necessary & required legal upgrades to cover zoning/bldg. codes.
Ironic, maybe, but not unprecedented.

Al Capone didn't go to prison on extortion, murder (and conspiracy to commit same), or anything like that. He was busted on tax evasion charges.

As for the other part, not surprising. Traffic, building code, and other safety issues are more immediately obvious than criminal activities done far away (relatively speaking).