booksandspooks t1_isvfz9t wrote on October 19, 2022 at 12:04 AM

Reply to comment by VaderTower in Question 1 by davidrothchild69

The representatives of Galloway Village Neighbors are not NIMBYs, they’re specifically opposing THIS development due to the poor drainage solution, significant increase in traffic, lack of tree conservation, and change to the view from the park. They recognize that this area will be developed, but they want a more cohesive development that preserves the culture of the neighborhood.

That’s not to say there aren’t NIMBYs in Galloway opposing the measure, but the big push to vote no on Question 1 as it stands is to preserve the park from an inconsiderate and poorly planned development in order to allow a better suited development to take its place.

I’m voting no on Question 1 because I know our city deserves and can do better.

VaderTower t1_isvnay2 wrote on October 19, 2022 at 12:59 AM

So I agree, I think our city can do better, I think developers can do better, I think Galloway could be much more neat than what's being proposed.

The problem is, this is what's being presented. If this isn't accepted the guy is going to pull a Duda and just tear the existing buildings down, tear all the trees out, and leave it a bit muddy eyesore, and there won't be a single damn thing any of us can do about it because the city of Springfield has and will make sure that property rights trump all.

If this is the hill you die on, don't die for one plot of land, die for an aesthetic board that requires good design, die for zoning reform, die for giving good developers free money to do their projects in Springfield. Those are the things that will make Springfield better. Not this one shitty 5 acre hill.

booksandspooks t1_isx9m7t wrote on October 19, 2022 at 11:32 AM

I don’t disagree with your “better” hills to die on, but I think opposing this development is the first step in the direction of those hills. It tells our city council, our mayor, our Chamber that we have expectations for development in our town and that if they’re not going to help us build a better city of their own volition, we’ll demand it from them. I think allowing this measure to pass condones lazy development.

VaderTower t1_isxo565 wrote on October 19, 2022 at 1:39 PM

It sends a message, but unfortunately the message is going to be that Springfield isn't a good place for development because even though the arguably shitty developer jumped through all the legally required hoops, they won't be able to proceed. This is an indicator to future developers that Springfield might not be. A good market.

If you follow that logic what you will see is diminishing development IN Springfield, and it gets moved to the edge of town or neighboring cities. Driving development out of town is what everyone is truly worried about, and what I've argued on here many times.

I don't give two shits about this specific project, do it, don't do it, it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that Springfield isn't seen as a bipolar city and the rules in place are maintained or legally changed to what we want them to be.