A decision on the stair permit should be judged by what happens at the Upper Chamber of Measures. The docket is at step 9 of the current review. Its latest entry reads: The first implementation notes have been compared with the promise in the minutes. A rule that looks complete in the chamber can still leave the people who use it carrying an unmeasured cost.
51 permit applications were entered this cycle, compared with 54 in the prior file. That comparison matters because the public summary counts entries. The open question is whether a new public stair can pass through a shared landing without closing the older route.
The proposed alignment shortens the climb for upper homes but leaves less turning room for freight carriers. The current record does not settle that disagreement. The objection deserves a direct answer, but it is not a reason to make the rule permanent before the affected residents can check the method.
Mara Veld checked the public works docket and the surveyor’s marked elevation sheets against the field notes. The method is to begin with the signed text, then test it against the people asked to carry it out; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The practical evidence is the handrail that narrows where the old stair meets a newer stone landing; any new measure should record that condition beside the total.
The chamber should approve a limited trial with a published end date, a way to record exceptions and a named reviewer. A second survey must test the turning radius with loaded handcarts. That is the narrowest decision that can be defended from the evidence now available.
