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

Reply to comment by VaderTower in Question 1 by davidrothchild69

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.