Based on the comments here, this doesn't seem to be an issue, but I wanted to bring it up anyway for anyone perusing. A lot of the rhetoric for the "Yes" side is ballooning this issue into more of a decision that would affect City-wide development. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

Question 1 is only in regards to the proposed zoning change IN GALLOWAY to allow an apartment to be built across from Sequiota. Unfortunately, high up leaders in our community are making ridiculous and outright wrong statements while urging Yes on this. To help shed some light on these claims, the following is copied directly from a Facebook post authored by Mark O'Brien (semi-retired journalist and contributes to the Springfield Daily Citizen)

> I am disappointed, to put it very mildly, by how some local leaders are stooping to political rhetoric that is based on misleading claims and fear-mongering – and that insults the intelligence and integrity of Springfield voters.

>I refer to public statements and a video that urge Yes votes to Question 1 on Nov. 8. Here’s how the question reads on the ballot:

>“Shall the City of Springfield amend the Springfield Land Development Code, Section 36-3-6, ‘Official zoning map and rules for interpretation,’ by rezoning 4.2 acres of property, generally located at 3503, 3521, 3527, and 3535 South Lone Pine Avenue from R-SF, Single-Family Residential, GR, General Retail, and LB, Limited Business District to Planned Development No. 374; and adopt an updates Official Zoning Map?”

>Translation in plain English: “Should developers be permitted to build an apartment complex across the street from Sequiota Park in the Galloway neighborhood?”

>Full disclosure: Because I have lived more than 60 years in the quiet University Heights neighborhood that presently is being brutally threatened by a commercial developer, I am in sympathy with Galloway neighbors who oppose the apartments. However, that’s not my intended point here.

>What’s going on with Question 1 is properly called a referendum. It’s a mechanism set forth in the city charter that provides citizens an opportunity to overrule a City Council decision.

>The issue on the upcoming ballot is specific to the Galloway proposal. So some of the generalized propaganda that is being spewed is – again, to put it mildly – nonsense.

>For instance:

>Hal Higdon, chancellor of Ozarks Technical Community College, claims that a No vote on Question 1 will mean that “Springfield is closed for business.” He says the Galloway referendum is “a very, very dangerous precedent we’re setting in our city. If you’re looking at economic development, if this thing is successful, it’s going to set the city back decades.”

>Clif Smart, president of Missouri State University, says the real question is: “Are we going to be a pro-growth community or not?” He joins Higdon in condemning the referendum process altogether with this blatant exaggeration: “If in fact the community, as a whole, is going to have to vote to approve development projects, the result of that is we’re not going to have any or we’re going to have very few.”

>To me it’s bizarre that these two distinguished and admired educational leaders are, in effect, saying that Springfieldians are too stupid to intelligently render decisions on a case-by-case basis based on fact and merit when extraordinary situations arise. They seem to assume that we would automatically reject any and all future development proposals.

>Both these guys must know that Question 1 doesn’t open the door to referendums becoming a routine procedure; the option has been in the charter for more than 40 years, and has been rarely exercised.

>The requirements for challenging a City Council action in a public vote are dauntingly difficult. Yet the prospect scares the bejeezus out of some developers and other Chamber of Commerce types – and the politicians they financially support. They ultimately want, and probably already are secretly plotting, to erase the referendum option from the city’s charter.

>So it’s not surprising that Mayor Ken McClure, a couple of Chamber stalwarts and some who are involved in development sat before a video camera to also speak out in favor of Question 1.

>But their allegations that your Yes vote will “ensure that our community continues to add high-paying jobs,” promises a “steady increase of reasonably-priced homes,” and guarantees that teachers and first-responders will be well-paid, etc.? Really? C’mon…

>We have become dangerously accustomed to outrageous statements – even outright lies – made by politicians in national and statewide campaigns. I am dismayed to see such tactics creep into in our local contests, which happened in this past spring’s R-12 Board of Education election.

>I hope this push for Yes votes on Question 1 isn’t a harbinger of crapola to come in next spring’s voting for the mayor’s post and seats on City Council and the school board.

>In the meantime, cast your Question 1 vote based on the Galloway situation alone, not on overwrought gloom-and-doom projections for the entire future of Springfield.

>It’s what the referendum process expects and what our community deserves.