<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Georgia color=#000000 size=3>
<DIV>Visionaries and B. Bonte:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joan has asked me to correct any historical errors in her description of
the NSA locations. Initially NSA met in a private home in the Fort Russell
neighborhood. Neighboring homeowners complained to city officials because
of parking problems (sound familiar??), increased traffic, and other nuisances
connected with running an educational institution in a residential
neighborhood. (NSA administrators - the same crew that currently runs NSA
did not bothered to consult city officials before opening the school. The
city development office has a complete file on the communications between NSA
and city officials. The material is on the public record and I would
encourage readers to stop by the city and request the file. NSA
was told to cease operating in the residential area - which they did, but not
without the same whining and hand wringing that is now so
unhappily familiar.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Most of us, after being bopped on the noggin by the shillelagh
of zoning laws, would learn from the experience - at least we would if we
gave a damn about city ordinances. The NSA administrators do not.
They promptly moved the college from the Fort Russell neighborhood to
Anselm House, the church owned office building on Washington St - kitty-corner
from the new location of the Co op . Again, they did not notify the
city, they did not ask if educational institutions were allowed in the central
business district. They did what suited them, and this time they got
away with it. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In 2002 the Trustees of NSA completed the purchase of the old Verizon
building. They didn't obtain (and still don't have) the
required zoning certificate. It seems elementary that prior to buying the
building their very experienced realtor would have checked on that
tiny, but oh so powerful detail. Why didn't she? A reasonable
person would assume that a competent city development officer would
require a zoning certificate prior to allowing occupancy. So why
didn't Mr. Plaskon do so?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So many questions, so few answers.....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 size=3 FAMILY="SERIF" PTSIZE="12">Rose Huskey<BR><BR>"First
they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi</FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>