Public Comment

Transcript (~4 min @ 1:00:54)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 1:00:36 Christopher Cinella: confusing City Council nights we've ever had. If there's no objection I'd like to accept our minutes into the record from the february 22nd meeting without reading seeing no objection those minutes are now accepted and if there's no objection i'd like to open up for public comment for any matters pertaining to the city council this evening seeing no objection we're now open for public comment madam clerk do we have anybody if anyone's in the room

▶ 1:01:08 Speaker 8: as an attendee would like to speak if you could raise your digital hand looks like most of these people were already in the room mr clerk of committees do you see anybody uh mr mcsweeney

▶ 1:01:25 Speaker 9: i believe okay there we are hi thanks everyone uh finn mcsweeney 160 west wyoming avenue i just want to speak briefly on the um i think it's 2022-69 polling locations um discussion i really mostly just want to thank the council for what i thought was a really thoughtful and interesting debate on a really important issue um it's a hard thing and there's a lot to consider and so you all considering that hard thing very spiritedly made me as a resident feel very well represented um and i want to thank counselor sanella for introducing it in the first place um you know personally i think that the arguments for simplifying the logistics and putting resources into fewer, more accessible locations seems very sound. But I was also very compelled by, for example, Councillor Stewart’s point about senior housing. And I was given a lot of pause by Councillor McMaster's comments reframing the consolidation of locations as, in fact, closing most of the polling locations within the city. I thought his comments implied it, but i'll state it directly if i read about this happening in georgia i view it negatively i think a lot of us would um and and i view the arguments in favor with a little bit of skepticism um and so i think we have a high standard to meet for ourselves on this um and i'm just not sure that small city um is really good enough we all know that virtually everyone who currently votes on foot would shift to driving under this change. And that does disadvantage certain people. We know that Lindfels Parkway and Tremont Street are not pedestrian friendly areas. They're not conducive to having people walking there. And vote by mail is a tremendous option that many of us fully support, but it does require some personal planning in a way that voting in a poll doesn't. So, you know, I ultimately think that the right decision was reached, which was that it's close, but we shouldn't make this particular change at this particular time. But, like I said, it was really great and thought provoking conversation. So, I just wanted to thank you for that. And finally, I've been in front of you a lot of times praising your leadership on remote and hybrid meeting access options. That discussion was a great example of why that matters. Um, if that, if those deliberations took place at a different time. And you were in the chamber, um, you know, many people who could be impacted by the poll closures. Could also have had a really hard time accessing those deliberations, but because you've been leaders and because you're so committed to making sure that everyone in the city can participate, no matter where they're sitting. Um, uh, you know, I really feel that everyone in the community had access to those deliberations. So that leadership will really pay dividends over time. And thank you for continuing to lead on it. Um, and thank you for a really thoughtful process. That's it.

▶ 1:04:25 Christopher Cinella: Good evening. Thank you. Do we have anybody else?