Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

deborah_jai t1_itq8k88 wrote

Why are the developers greedy for building housing and the galloway residents not greedy for using the power of the law to make their neighborhood stay the same forever?

12

socialistpizzaparty t1_itqcy15 wrote

I don’t like the idea of apartments right there BUT the whole argument against it comes across as disingenuous. It’s rich folks, down the road, not wanting their property values impacted. Don’t get me wrong, that’s fine if it’s your motivation, but just be up front about it.

If I vote no, it’ll be because of traffic right there at the intersection.

28

the_honeyman t1_itqhr53 wrote

This is pretty much exactly the reason I'll be voting yes. Just be honest about being a NIMBY and I'd respect you more.

4

xPeachesV t1_itrngx6 wrote

The developer actually made a public statement earlier today and seemed to infer that there was a Facebook group around this issue that has been scrubbed because it reflected poorly on what people's real motivation was against No. 1.

I understand its hearsay but in this town and seeing how people act on social media, I don't think its too far of a stretch.

−1

deborah_jai t1_itqd9n9 wrote

I and my fiancé will be voting yes much more proudly even than for the marijuana legalization (still pisses me off it won’t automatically expunge MJ convictions). People need housing and if more people want to live there then housing needs to be built, otherwise rents will keep skyrocketing.

−3

antiquated_human t1_itqeg4z wrote

The secret to lower priced housing is less corporately owned housing, not more.

36

socialistpizzaparty t1_itqf6ji wrote

We need to rethink single family zoning in general. It’s wasteful and is one of the leading reasons we have no affordable housing. We need more ADUs as rentals for young people and also the elderly, as well as duplexes).

11

antiquated_human t1_itqhida wrote

in theory, yes. But in practice, having a small number of corporations owning a large percentage of the housing has done nothing but push rent higher, not lower.

Not to mention, single family home prices didn't start to skyrocket until corporations started buying those up as well.

Until there are measures taken to prevent monopolistic control of housing, things will get worse. Since this is a country that has put healthcare and food into the Profits over People category, I don't see housing fairing any better. But it is pure fantasy to think all the apartments being built will contribute affordable living. They are just the last step in the complete corporate takeover of the daily necessities of life.

13

socialistpizzaparty t1_itqi6qs wrote

I agree with all of that, but man it gets overwhelming thinking about everything needed to fix it. So let’s all do what we can and vote.

4

antiquated_human t1_itqiyv4 wrote

Definitely this. Everyone vote. I don't care if you vote the same as me, just vote. Be involved.

2

sgf-guy t1_itt403m wrote

I believe apartments are generally bad for human health mentally…

But this former 1950s era drive in overnight building structure in Joplin might be a better compromise for people like students, the retired, single people, etc.

You have your own place…your own grass…prob split out to be mowed…your own escape from people above/below/around you as in an apartment…enough room to have your stuff…own parking place…you can also easily sublet off utilities for construction…have a crew on sight for specific things at a time, use common materials…

Www.Westportinnjoplin.com

Plus you have much lower costs to buy if that is the model. You could prob build those for $50k tops. It’s basically Eden Village here but with a more historical background.

Let’s just say it was $60k to build. Even in todays wild rate environment that’s a $450 a month payment. That’s pretty fair. You could fit 3-4 of these on the average city lot. This could a game changer from not just finding a good reason to get rid of way past their prime rentals but also putting healthy density back into urban centers and not encouraging sprawl.

2

Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itqwenu wrote

LOL-- More housing does not decrease the prices, especially if the housing being built is specifically luxury apartments at 1600 a month for single bedrooms.

I'll share a little story of this In 2003 my former hometown had 3 major hurricanes go through it. So many homes destroyed. The fixing crews were booked so far out it was easier for families to build a new home. Boom huge increase of housing in the area and eventually the original homes were also completed. Double the housing, right? Then they added 6 apartment complexes. All were nice the 1st year then became section 8 by year 3. Today you can get on a list to maybe be approved for a 1 bed for 2200. Increased housing units does not decrease cost.

Also in that time the river has died. Waterways poluted. A City utilities oversight meant that city water wasn't being tested for 2 years because they were overrun with all the additional accounts.

I'll share a little story of this In 2003 my former hometown had 3 major hurricanes go through it. So many homes were destroyed. The fixing crews were booked so far out it was easier for families to build a new home. Boom a huge increase in housing in the area, and eventually, the original homes were also completed. Double the housing, right? Then they added 6 apartment complexes. All were nice the 1st year, then became section 8 by year 3. Today you can get on a list to maybe be approved for a 1 bed for 2200. Increased housing units does not decrease cost. se cost. se cost. cost. .

The increased number of people in Galloway means we need to support fire and police services. Don't they get their operating expenses money from taxes? Which with this developer, there would be none for almost 11 years. 11 years. 11 years. for an already hurting services.

6

OrdinaryTrout t1_itvryr4 wrote

what are you talking about? commericial housing developments like this INCREASE rent.

1

[deleted] OP t1_itq9j7j wrote

[deleted]

5

the_honeyman t1_itqhkny wrote

Why would you not want a new mixed use development in your neighborhood? More amenities, walkable neighborhoods, all of these are good things. Corporate owned housing not so much, but capitalists gonna capitalist i guess.

−1

banjomin t1_itqib00 wrote

Weird and dishonest that you’re talking as though the corporate owned housing is not the main thing for this ballot question.

Like you know why it sucks but wanna pretend like that’s not gonna be a big part of the development, even though the corporate-owned housing is, again, the whole reason we’re voting on it.

8

the_honeyman t1_itqitm8 wrote

I don't believe that one bit. The residents of Galloway don't want development there at all, regardless of who develops it, NIMBY is the primary reason people are pushing NO so hard, those residents couldn't care less about corporate ownership.

Who is going to make the commitment to mixed use developments like this other than corporate developers in this country?

4

banjomin t1_itqs9aj wrote

You’re not even arguing against anything I said. I told you it was dishonest to act like the apartment buildings aren’t the main thing in this proposed development plan.

Now you’re just ranting about nimbys.

4

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqx8l8 wrote

>Now you’re just ranting about nimbys.

Isn't that the whole reason we're voting on this?

3

banjomin t1_itqxuob wrote

Nah I think it's about whether or not it's a good idea to develop the area around sequiota park into a boutique apartment village so that a wealthy development company can make money and rich kids can have a scenic background for their apartment balconies.

Although yeah, there are reductionist assholes out there who are carrying water for the wealthy development company and the rich kids by pretending like anyone who doesn't love putting Sequiota park in the shade of a bunch of apartment buildings are only doing so because they are "galloway home owner nimbys".

5

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqype6 wrote

As opposed to a bunch of rich old folks getting a scenic background for their homes.

−1

Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itro47v wrote

TIL I'm old. Also, if I were rich wouldn't I be able to afford to move?

Believe me I will have my 40 acres one day hopefully before I'm REALLY old...

2

banjomin t1_itqyw6a wrote

Rich old folks live in the park? I think that's illegal. TRY AGAIN.

1

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqz1i0 wrote

Ok, well you clearly don't want to have a thought out conversation. Thanks for the chat.

1

the_honeyman t1_itqvqqv wrote

Because it doesn't matter what is proposed to do with that area, the same group of wealthy nimbys come out in full force against it. The bike trails, several other proposals for that area, everything. Trying to argue its about this particular plan feels disingenuous, when everything meets the same level of opposition and the same arguments are trotted out every time.

The developer is looking towards mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods, and has plans to replace more trees than somebody like a subdivision developer would.

1

banjomin t1_itqwmht wrote

So we're just supposed to want this development because if we don't, then we might be faced with an even worse deal in the future?

That's a terrible argument!

And you're still just ignoring the bullshit you said earlier, which is what I called you out on:

>Why would you not want a new mixed use development in your neighborhood? More amenities, walkable neighborhoods, all of these are good things. Corporate owned housing not so much, but capitalists gonna capitalist i guess.

WTF was up with that, huh? Why are you trying to pretend like this proposal isn't mainly about corporate-owned housing??

8

the_honeyman t1_itqxjlw wrote

>So we're just supposed to want this development because if we don't, then we might be faced with an even worse deal in the future? > >That's a terrible argument!

And yet, that's the exact logic people are using to say vote yes on Amendment 3. Hmm.

>And you're still just ignoring the bullshit you said earlier, which is what I called you out on: > >>Why would you not want a new mixed use development in your neighborhood? More amenities, walkable neighborhoods, all of these are good things. Corporate owned housing not so much, but capitalists gonna capitalist i guess. > >WTF was up with that, huh? Why are you trying to pretend like this proposal isn't mainly about corporate-owned housing??

Because mixed use, walkable development is objectively better than urban sprawl single family dwellings where everybody needs a car to do anything? Are we suddenly pretending to have a problem with the corporate owned part? I'd be extremely curious to know the percentage of people who live in that neighborhood who made their money via working the corporate rat race, and who don't see problems with ordering shit from Amazon at the drop of a hat.

3

banjomin t1_itqybo2 wrote

>And yet, that's the exact logic people are using to say vote yes on Amendment 3. Hmm.

Don't try to change the topic just because your argument is bad.

>Are we suddenly pretending to have a problem with the corporate owned part? I'd be extremely curious to know the percentage of people who live in that neighborhood who made their money via working the corporate rat race, and who don't see problems with ordering shit from Amazon at the drop of a hat.

I'm just gonna go back and copy paste a previous comment I made towards you:

>Dude, the amount of water you're carrying for a wealthy-ass development company is disgraceful.

3

the_honeyman t1_itr02e5 wrote

I don't even have skin in the game. I couldn't care less what happens down there. The hypocrisy is real, is all.

If that's a bad argument, so is the "yes on 3."

0

banjomin t1_itr079y wrote

>I don't even have skin in the game. I couldn't care less what happens down there.

Yeah of course, you're just here to spew a bunch of bullshit without knowing what you're talking about.

>The hypocrisy is real, is all.

This is just more bullshit.

>If that's a bad argument, so is the "yes on 3."

I'm just gonna copy paste this one from my previous comment:

>Don't try to change the topic just because your argument is bad.

2

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqkal3 wrote

A person can be greedy about anything not just money. But this will effect property values and therefore property tax and insurance. So the Galloway residents also have money in the game.

−3

banjomin t1_itqhplq wrote

Developers: want to make money

You: how is that greedy???

Home owners: we don’t want the park ruined by a bunch of apartment buildings

You: this is greed.

2

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqkwju wrote

How is the park ruined by an apartment building? Are they building the apartments in the park? The park will be busier. Is that what you mean by ruined? Cause that's not ruined.

0

banjomin t1_itqrndb wrote

Nah not what I meant. I like the trees around the park more than I would like a bunch of apartment buildings.

5

the_honeyman t1_itqijnk wrote

How would the park be ruined by building apartments down across the street?

−1

Low_Tourist t1_itqiwcl wrote

It's not down the street. It's directly across the street from the park.

8

the_honeyman t1_itqj9yj wrote

Ok. How would the park be ruined by building apartments across the street from the park?

1

banjomin t1_itqse1p wrote

Because right now there are a bunch of trees around there and that is nicer for the people at the park than a bunch of apartment buildings.

I personally would like to still have some sunshine there after 3pm instead of just being in the shade of an apartment building.

4

Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itqxcuu wrote

It will be ruined because the apartments will use the park as their retention pond.

4

the_honeyman t1_itqy8m0 wrote

The developer has no plans for dealing with runoff? That's a legitimate argument, though it seems like a failure on the planning and zoning commission to make them address it if true.

2