Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

Trixxxxxi t1_isszhiw wrote

No.

I don't have any love for the Galloway Karens, but I also give 0 fucks about some luxury apartments the average person can't afford. Also the drainage situation is pretty fucked. I guess the developers just plan to put a drainage pipe leading to the park so it will just flood the park?

16

Restelly-Quist t1_istvksh wrote

Yes that is the plan, and the city gave them an exception to do it, which feels shady. Normally they have to retain drainage on their own property.

6

EcoAffinity t1_ist5bq7 wrote

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.

14

Shadow11Wolf50 t1_isszepp wrote

After reading and looking over both sides. I'd say no. Being a born Springfield resident and looking through both sides; The side that wants a "yes" vote just want to slap more shit in to profit off of, without giving af to those it would affect. The supporters are almost entirely comprised of white men that own businesses. There's like 2 women in there. The "no" side makes valid safety concerns about flooding and added car traffic that the area cant handle, and whos gonna pay for those additions after they become a problem? Not the people who plan on profiting from the new development. Springfield had some nasty flooding this year, in which I suspect will get worse, let's not make it any worse for something that isnt going to help the rental and housing market for the working class.

10

Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_isuhtsc wrote

I'm worried for my little place of peace. A firm NO from me. I've seen what happens when these apartments cannot be filled due to prices. I've seen a natural waterway decline in health. Where it once produced calms and oysters, large fish, and sea grass... all gone. From street run off and green grass fertilizers. I've seen where lighting bugs once existed and as an area becomes more populated, the people rallied for mosquito trucks to mass blanket kill... But 8 yo me remembers going clamming in that river and catching lightning bugs with her parents. 5 years ago when I moved away from that place to here none of those thing were possible in that place anymore. That river is dying. The beautiful lightning bugs are gone with all their twinkle and sparkle to life. People are there now. But they cant afford the 1 bedroom for 2200 a month. Homeless tents an camps are everywhere in that area now.

6

Outrageous-Ad-2761 t1_isv2h2d wrote

A resounding no. Leave our parks alone and don't bring in expensive, greedy development.

6

Miserable_Figure7876 t1_isszdjb wrote

I don't know. It feels like a fight between greedy developers and selfish NIMBYs, and I don't like either. I'm leaning towards yes, because it's new multi family housing and mixed use, which are things we need, but I'm not sure.

Also, I live outside the city limits, so I don't know if I'll even get to vote on it.

5

VaderTower t1_isv7o5m wrote

You will not. City residents only.

I'm with you, developer sucks, nimbys suck.

Only reason I'm voting for it is because it's progress I want to see happen. I wasn't in favor when they wanted to tear the old buildings down, but now that they're saving them, it's a WAY better option than someone coming in 10 years and demoing the buildings because they can (cough cough University Heights) and have the right to.

It's funny how against it everyone is when the most adamant and vocal opponent is the 'about faces' compound on the hill 2 properties over. Somehow they were able to build a commercial property with a parking lot years ago, but fucking pull the ladder up when you're done, no one else gets to!

5

TellMore4974 t1_isuufc5 wrote

They need to leave the remaining natural vestiges of Gallaway alone. STOP DEVELOPEMENT.

5

tastethematzah t1_isv9kg8 wrote

Screw the GVNA and Jenkins both, it has to be a No. If they tried to build something like the corner of pickwick and cherry which is low density, I would be a yes but the city and the developer colluded and tried to screw voters over and the appeals court judge called them out for their shit so you can't let them win. Also the parking lot runoff would cause damage to the cave system and the bat habitat which should be protected.

5

Illustrious-Leave406 t1_issm80n wrote

It won’t matter. Even if the citizens vote yes, city council will eventually allow the Development just as they have in in situations.

2

Hollowleg15 t1_issal1d wrote

Can anybody explain what a yes or no would mean and what would happen?

1

Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_isuga7u wrote

Yes would allow these expensive 4 story apartments across from Sequitota park to exist. Causing worse flooding and more traffic. Along with damaging the waterways and other precious resources with the cave and sinkholes in the area. since they do not have to have their own retention pond and can allow their stormwater to run into the creek. These are not cost-effective apartments either. These are 200-300 single bedroom luxury apartments. So not for the average family in Springfield. Hell the average job in Springfield, a single person could not afford to rent alone.

There are no increased taxes that the city would gain by this increased "density" for the first 10 years.

A no would protect the neighborhood an waterways.

They did a traffic study I think in March 2020 during the height of Stay home for 2 weeks to lower the curve.

A no would protect the neighborhood and waterways. neither would these apartment dwellers. However, I have since found a tree that pays taxes and it's a beautiful thing.

Edit: IDK why Reddit duplicated what I typed.

5

royallyblue t1_isswypk wrote

Yes

It's nice to have places to live where you can get around and access amenities by walking or biking. Mixed-use developments like this project help provide that. It's already much easier to pick empty land outside of town to build, but that sprawl is worse for the environment and only works for people who own their own car.

I also like that it keeps the old Sequiota Bike Shop and other existing buildings.

1

Low_Tourist t1_istr2so wrote

I don't think it keeps those buildings. That's where they plan to build, and there's not enough room to build behind them.

2

royallyblue t1_isu3p1p wrote

Reading the planned development on the ballot:

"The proposed Planned Development is proposing to preserve the existing structures (Treadway Building, Purple Shamrock and Sequiota Bike Shop) located at 3521, 3527 and 3535 S. Lone Pine Avenue to preserve and rehabilitate following the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and minimum maintenance requirements."

https://www1.springfieldmo.gov/bills_pdfs/ORD6614.pdf

3

Low_Tourist t1_isucwf3 wrote

Hmmm...this is the first I'm hearing that. BTW - what's your connection to the project? An ancient account that has only commented on this post makes one curious.

3

royallyblue t1_isur0zf wrote

Connection is that I liked stopping by the Bike Shop for a slushie while riding and cares what happens there. Also spend more time reading about things like ballot issues than I probably should.

1

VaderTower t1_isv7r18 wrote

It does, the developer started by wanting to tear them down and revised it to keep them.

2

MattyThiccBoi t1_istn2vf wrote

Absolutely YES.

It’s quite literally a NIMBY because the president of the GVNA has property the butts up to the development. It’s ironic they complain about the infrastructure not being able to support the increase in traffic, I guess they don’t understand how CIDs work and that the project will bring in additional tax dollars for those improvements that are necessary.

1

Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_isvefuj wrote

Umm except there’s a 10 year tax deferment. So the increased city’s resources will not be funded for another 11 years at best.

5

MattyThiccBoi t1_isvkulf wrote

What about the sales tax generated from the commercial units? What about the increase in revenue for all Galloway businesses from the residents?

Also, why weren’t any of the other developments in the Galloway area protested to the same extent? Karen go NIMBYYYYYY

0

LadyBaconHands t1_it0951m wrote

Those same retail units that could’ve been generating sales tax have been closed for 4 years because this developer forced them out with the intent of bulldozing the buildings.

2

MattyThiccBoi t1_it0e956 wrote

Yes, that is necessary to build a more profitable endeavor. The length of time it has taken is at no fault of the developers, quite the contrary.

−1

booksandspooks t1_isvg7l7 wrote

Wendy worked extensively with the neighborhood and conservationists to preserve the mature tree cover and design an area that was cohesive with the neighborhood. That’s what GVNA is asking for, not no development ever.

1

MattyThiccBoi t1_iswq5nk wrote

Convenient excuse. Why were there no efforts to save those mature trees where the other developments in Galloway? If I had to guess, probably because they weren’t next to her property.

1

LadyBaconHands t1_it2hsb9 wrote

Those developments were essentially unknown. There was a definite lack of community involvement during the original blighting all those years ago. I didn't know anything was going on there until construction started.

0

sgfjb t1_isufvgq wrote

Yes. More housing options will help the overall local economy and housing issue. Even if the rent is higher, it puts more competition and pressure at existing similar priced units which has ripple effects across the entire market. This is basic supply and demand economics. A bunch of NIMBYs in here. If they fill the units with people paying those higher rents it means more people living, shopping and paying taxes in Springfield.

There is nothing beautiful or historic about the piece of land and development will only enhance the Galloway area despite the neighbors wishes. I am amazed this is so controversial.

1

booksandspooks t1_isvghsc wrote

It significantly changes the view from the park and will have a detrimental effect on the park’s storm water management. I’m not sure how that enhances an area that’s enjoyed by more than just the Galloway neighbors.

2

sgfjb t1_isw0wm3 wrote

People go to Sequiota Park to look that direction? And it’s beautiful now and will be hideous with newer buildings? These arguments are such a stretch. Is there a report or expert that’s spoken on the storm water management? That’s the only legitimate concern I’ve read but it’s only been in pure speculation and conjecture. If there’s meat to it, please share.

0

Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_isvemkm wrote

Where are the high paying jobs to support it?

1

sgfjb t1_isw16jm wrote

Is that a new requirement that housing must come attached with matching jobs? We have 2% unemployment and a severe lack of housing options. But please let’s keep focusing on only allowing single family homes in our city with no buildable empty lots.

1

ProgressMom68 t1_isy7hwe wrote

I don’t care. Seriously. This is a NIMBY vs. greedy developer issue that won’t do shit to solve SGFs lack of affordable housing. This is literally a pissing contest between a bunch of wealthy people and it’s gross.

1

Ballyhoo-45 t1_issdax5 wrote

Yes. We need more housing options if business and industry is going to grow in Springfield. Everyone deserves a decent place to live near our parks. It does nothing to the park itself, it’s the high income neighbors who say “not in my backyard” type arguments. Galloway residents are no more important than anyone else. They can’t completely control all development for miles around them because “traffic”.

−2

Low_Tourist t1_istrelw wrote

Their plans for stormwater is to drain directly into the park, and these apartments will be directly across from the park. It absolutely affects the park.

11

Ballyhoo-45 t1_isunqr9 wrote

City Parks are often in flood plains. It’s in a flood plain regardless. Proper planning and execution has solved problems like this all over town. Wastewater engineers at the city and bonded, certified professionals hired by the developer are perfectly capable. They have planned this development well and met city requirements. There isn’t an objective argument to NOT develop land around the park. Just more NIMBY. We need more housing in Springfield. Apartment dwellers deserve parks too. Top employers in Springfield are depending on it. We can’t hire the types of talent our businesses need to succeed because of our housing situation.

Just because you own a home in a neighborhood does not mean you can stop all development around you. It’s not an appropriate expectation.

−1

Low_Tourist t1_isuooqb wrote

Their floodwater plan is literally running a pipe under the road and draining into the park. It's not hyperbole here.

4

Ballyhoo-45 t1_isv0x1j wrote

The city engineering staff does not seem to agree with you sentiments. This developer has done his due diligence and followed guidelines the same as other developers all over town. If you believe development guidelines should be more robust, take it up with the city.

−1

Trixxxxxi t1_issz7xy wrote

How affordable will these apartments be?

10

SliceOfBrain t1_istdj22 wrote

Not at all affordable. Screw NIMBYs, but this isn't the mixed-use project we need.

10

Trixxxxxi t1_istf7dx wrote

All that goes up is luxury apartments. We don't need $1200+/mos apartments.

8

VaderTower t1_isv8t96 wrote

Yes. Screw all NIMBYs, whether that's the ones who stopped the development of the first location of Eden Village 2, because they didn't want dirty homeless people near them OR if it's ones that want to stop luxury'ish apartments.

Both groups are opposite ends of the political spectrum but they might as well be the same people.

−2

booksandspooks t1_isvfz9t wrote

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.

6

VaderTower t1_isvnay2 wrote

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.

2

booksandspooks t1_isx9m7t wrote

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.

4

VaderTower t1_isxo565 wrote

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.

3