Knitting updatiness

I am working on a shawlette constructed side-to-side ... which means, basically, that I am creating an isosceles triangle by starting with a small number of stitches, increasing on one side every other row until I'm halfway done, then decreasing (same side, same rate) until I'm down to a small number of stitches again.

The "until halfway done" bit is especially fun. It generally translates to "half the desired length, or half of the yarn, whichever is first". If you have more than enough yarn, or if you are planning on using two balls of yarn (same theory as for toe-up socks; go until you run out of one ball of yarn, then the other one will be the same length), it's fine. Otherwise, it's, er, interesting.

This type of project tends to have several distinct stages:

1) Cast-on. Yay for new things!
2) Wow, the rows are just flying, this will be done in no time at all!
3) Okay, I'm fairly comfortable with the pattern and how it works...
4) Gosh these rows are taking forever.
5) I wonder if I'm halfway there yet.
6) I think this is about halfway.
7) Gosh these rows are taking forever.
8) Ack I think I used more than half of my yarn what if I run out D:
9) Still taking forever.
10) Hm I don't think I went far enough I will probably have lots left over D:
(repeat 7-10 ad nauseum)
11) Ooh hey, bind-off. Yay for finished projects!

I am on stage 10 at this point. Yarn is a tricky thing, it is.

(But once I get this done I have Plans! I am going to do Althea* with this yarn (the brownbluegreen one) and it is going to be Awesome.)

* nts: [Althea](pattern) will not work on DW. *headdesk*

*sags in relief*

So, there's been this whole saga with trying to get a ramp to the front entrance of our church, made vastly overcomplicated by the fact that the church is a designated historical site blah blah blah. Several years of working with the Historical Resources Preservation Commission, who kept ruling (4-3, but still) that the proposal was, for one thing, not necessary since we already had ADA-regulated access via side entrances, and for another thing, would alter a character-defining feature (namely the, er, historical concrete steps? whatever). The church appealed to the city council, who had it on the agenda for tonight, after several postponements on their part.

Those of us who came in support of the church came at 6:30. The item didn't come up for discussion until a bit after 8, and took 45 minutes of discussion, hearing from city staff and from a HRPC representative and from a church representative, and then public comments--

(I got up and spoke. I had been dithering, but what pushed me over the edge was the absolute irony of the fact that public comments were supposed to be presented at a microphone on a podium that was not at all accessible, and so I had to have someone hold a wireless mic for me in order to allow me to speak about an accessibility issue. I said something along the lines of "My hame is $realname and I have been a member of the church for a long time and it is important, to me personally and also speaking as someone who would like to see our church be welcoming to all, to be able to GO IN THE FRONT DOOR, and that a church is not just any random building, it has symbolic importance and the front entrance has symbolic importance and um yeah" and I was talking way too fast and couldn't slow myself down and I was shaking by the time I got back and I don't know that my comments were necessary but I feel fairly good about having done it, despite HELLO ADRENALINE. From which, I might add, I am STILL shaking and babbly.)

--and questions from council members. Then a motion, which thankfully was made (and seconded) to uphold the appeal. Discussion of that motion, during which one of the council members showed profound ableism with his comments ("it's not a BUILDING that's inviting, it's the PEOPLE INSIDE" [our congregation could be the perfectest most welcoming congregation ever but how would someone outside know that?] and "I went for a couple of Sundays and watched to see which entrance was used and most of the people used the side-with-ramp one" [I'm not sure if his point was "a lot of people need/want/like to use the ramp", which is okay, or "a lot of people like to use the side entrance", which is SO NOT OKAY because hello people that CANNOT USE an entrance will not go there week after week and go "Doh I can't get in well let me go around the side"])

...did I mention I'm a bit adrenalione-hyped still? and babbly?

But the upshot of it all was a 5-0 vote in favor of our appeal. We still need to fund and build the thing, but we do have permission.