Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Restelly-Quist t1_issmx32 wrote

No.

I went to a housing collaborative meeting where both sides stated their case. My opinions:

  1. the housing is not affordable.

The developer admitted that it will be the most expensive housing on the market. Their justification for saying it would increase affordable housing, was that if someone moves into one of their properties from a $700/month property, that $700/month property is now available for someone else to move into.

  1. Flooding

That area already has issues with flooding, and adding a bunch of concrete is not going to help matters, even with the exceptions the city made.

  1. Accessibility

The developer didn’t even seem to have the first idea about how to make properties accessible to those with disabilities, but was willing to learn.

  1. Neighborhood

The neighbors in the area don’t seem to want it, and have worked hard to maintain the feel of their neighborhood.

I know there are tons of signs and publicity to vote yes, but I think that’s just because “Yes” is the side with more money.

29

the_honeyman t1_ist677y wrote

Hijacking top comment to ask a question I've been wondering...

Is the bike park tied to this ballot measure? That's the thing that would sway my vote. I couldn't care less about what privileged rich NIMBYs want or don't want, and development that doesn't increase our already outrageous urban sprawl would be nice, but fuck pushy developers as well.

6

Cold417 t1_isv4tif wrote

No, it's not tied to the bike park. It's not even anywhere near the proposed development in Galloway.

11

VaderTower t1_iszifty wrote

Not affordable, yet the truly affordable options that are presented elsewhere in town are argued against because the neighbors don't want poor or homeless near them. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Public Works made a statement today that stormwater plans were approved as required state and city requirements. They likely have detention on site, any project over an acre requires a civil engineer to do an SWPPP, stormwater protection plan per the state. So with detention this development should add 0 additional runoff.

Developers don't know the requirements of ADA, accessibility, etc. Architects and Civil Engineers do, and rest assured they have legal liability if they don't provide accessibility to the site and/or building.

No argument on the neighbors, you're right, they don't want it, they've been very adamant. I'm sure MSU's neighbors don't like the school there, I'm sure halfway houses neighbors don't like them around, I sure don't like the 300 acre quarry being right off lone pine across from sequiota making the road shitty, dusty, adding no aesthetic value but it gets to keep expanding and digging.

I'll die on the hill to keep calling out NIMBYs in Springfield.

2