Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

banjomin t1_iv7bbya wrote

A rich guy is upset because the city gave him a sweetheart deal to develop a scenic but very flood-y area into boutique apartments for rich kids, but now everyone living in the area is upset that the deal lets him get away with ruining the area by making the flood-y-ness worse. Those residents have gathered the resources to oppose him as a group. Their efforts have resulted in the question being put on the ballot.

My info is from a meeting where the developer and the group of residents both presented their cases. The developer made a point to complain about how the city had basically guaranteed him that this would be easy money, like he thought that was a good argument to get people on his side about it.

Aside from the info distributed at that meeting, you'll find plenty of people arguing either side. There has been money spent to try and persuade residents that this development is in their best interest. I have heard that these corporate-owned boutique apartments somehow help with affordable housing (at the meeting they said units for as low as $1800/month, so definitely not affordable housing in springfield MO), and I have heard that we need to vote yes on this because a future plan could somehow be worse. Have heard a lot of people complaining that the residents are just being NIMBYs, which I think would be a fair accusation if the group wasn't making a good argument for voting 'No'.

Anyway, here is the site for the 'Vote No' group and they lay things out pretty well:

https://www.gallowayvillage.org/no-rezoning

There's a whole section describing the timeline of events.

29

Raider3447 t1_iv7rlaw wrote

I read the link you provided. I’ve lived in Springfield my entire life (over 40 years) and Galloway has been a piece of shit for most of it. It’s run down. There’s a few old flea markets, abandoned concrete factories and a quarry. It hasn’t been preserved at all. I also watched the video from the vote yes on 1 group. They are saying the development will put money towards drainage, road improvements and still keep over 100 mature trees. I don’t understand what we’re trying to save in Galloway.

−24

banjomin t1_iv82yxk wrote

>They are saying the development will put money towards drainage, road improvements

My understanding is that this means a pipe diverting storm drainage into the park, which is bad.

>keep over 100 mature trees.

My understanding is this means they’re getting rid of about 300, so they’re getting rid of 3/4 of trees in that area, which will not help with storm drainage, which is bad.

>I don’t understand what we’re trying to save in Galloway.

My understanding is that they’re trying to prevent the above things. We can turn the park into a dark swamp or cope with the wealthy developer not being able to buy another boat for his kid this year.

17

xPeachesV t1_iv8iom2 wrote

This is just me and I know I’m a rando but the way people talk about this developer shows that they are talking out of their ass.

This developer grew up in SGF, played QB at Hillcrest and has never had a bad thing to say about this town in all the years I’ve known him. I have never gotten the sense that he is some entitled asshole but the way people talk about him, it’s like they know who he is and can therefore judge his real intentions.

It’s fine for people to be against prop 1 for all the reasons laid out but some of this shit comes out of thin air

−9

Raider3447 t1_iv83wwd wrote

I don’t want the park turned into drainage either. If the project is done properly, then I think it will be a good thing. The flip side to this, is another developer comes in with a plan that people like even less and it doesn’t get stopped.

I’m a simple man. I like cool restaurants, bars and biking trails near my home. If this helps that cause, then I’m all for it.

−11

bthornsy t1_iv8t5eg wrote

That’s not what it’s going to be though. Can you imagine what ripping out 287 mature trees and plopping an Ingram mill style five story apt complex against a two lane road will do? They have no real plans for infrastructure improvements beyond a speed bump lol.

As for flooding, the current vegetation is literally the only thing holding back flooding running down the hill as well. It gets bad enough during the rainiest times.

The most important thing to note is, the neighborhood (which I am not a part of) is actually in favor of responsible development of the area in its current zone, light commercial. If they tucked a cool, modern, single story light commercial development into the trees and added greenway access, that’d be sweet! Galloway neighborhood has expressed interest in something like this. They’ve even expressed interest into rezoning for light single family residential and even light mixed use!

The real issue is city officials/real estate companies who have vested interest in $1200/mo+ apartments overlooking the park. They tried shoving this rezoning through, hoping they could dupe Springfield residents into letting private interests capitalize on one of springfields few truly green spaces in town. Corrupt AF.

Oh, and the taxes will be deferred for TEN YEARS for the developers. How will that help anybody but the investors and developers? Hate to rant, but this issue gives springfieldians a real chance at deciding what happens with our nice spaces, I hope we don’t squander it.

Please vote NO on #1.

18

pile_of_holes t1_iva6zeo wrote

Well said. Your middle paragraph is spot on. I do live in Galloway, and we recognize the parcel will be developed. We feel that it can be effectively developed with the current zoning. The proposed development is too high density and not at all in character with its context. In a place like Galloway, character and context are so important to preservation of the aspects that make Galloway attractive. We want to preserve that character so that Springfield at large can enjoy it into the future, rather than have something built which will be detrimental to that, while really only benefiting the developer, and which will lose the shiny attractive newness in about 10 years, right as those tax abatements would be ending.

3

Raider3447 t1_iv914az wrote

Thanks for your take on it. I agree that we don’t need more apartments. I’d like to think Galloway could be something similar to Rogers/Bentonville areas with lots of things to do outdoors. Throw in some cool places to eat and grab a drink and that would be great. However, I think the tax deferment is justified if the development can bring in business (tax) dollars.

I get frustrated seeing progress derailed by bullshit and I hope this doesn’t fall in line with the square redevelopment from 15 years ago. There were some great ideas for the square but once someone got a historical designation slapped on the fountain, it effectively killed the project.

I did read this article a few minutes ago:

https://sgfcitizen.org/government/elections/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-debated-galloway-village-ballot-issue/

It does change how I feel about it. I’m anti apartments and pro bars/restaurants.

0

Low_Tourist t1_iv80bzb wrote

Sounds like you haven't been down to the area in decades.

14

Raider3447 t1_iv816oi wrote

I live down the street from Galloway. I go to 4x4, Galloway Grill and Great Escape on a regular basis. The new shopping/restaurant area is nice.

−9

One10soldier1 t1_iv7mham wrote

This guy is real good at explaining the amendments. He explains all five in five short videos.

Here is the link to ad 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRlaejU4c0s&ab_channel=SomeGuywithaTie

13

sgf-guy t1_iv8fvuz wrote

I’m voting no. Not a Fed fan but it is SUPER easy to see quick money and ignore risk with situational investments. If all the GA were licensed investment managers…maybe. But more often than not what is hot today turns out to be a burn tomm.

The FY 2023 Total Operating Budget is $47,495,040,237 or around $7500 per resident ballpark. 3 billion compared to 47 billion is a very bad rounding error. One thing I saw pre pandemic said fed funds were about a third of state budget.

I would support safe haven banking near fed funds level for the year, an option to spend for rare or random needs within a no more than 33% of the excess funds at hand scenario…and at second year of excess funds drop it to 15%. After the second year the surplus is sent as a check to state taxpayers.

I need the govt to do their job and not much more. I don’t need more govt. I’m ok with fixing things up that need it. A lot of times it makes sense for maintenance because a dollar spent today is 10 tomm…but the state should not be hoarding cash and then expecting to make more money. A very bad path to go down.

7

One10soldier1 t1_iv8plmx wrote

Wow... That's a lot to unpack. Guy asked for an ELI5 and I provided a link. Sorry I pissed you off.

1

[deleted] t1_iv78293 wrote

[deleted]

−18

Tupelo72 t1_iv7878k wrote

Even 3?

11

Arc-ansas t1_iv91bho wrote

Yes on 3. You can grow your own, has no caps on dispensaries, improves medical program, expunges past Marijuana convictions. It's better than Colorado's law. Issues 3 was created by activists who passed the medical cannabis law.

5

[deleted] t1_iv80efk wrote

[deleted]

−16

XzallionTheRed t1_iv9b6f1 wrote

Someone has the reefer madness.

3

[deleted] t1_iv9w7lg wrote

I just don't want the resulting price it increase.

−1

kichigai-ichiban t1_iva2hh6 wrote

ohh... you sell weed and don't want the competition and your price to drop.

Why not apply for a seller's license?

4

[deleted] t1_iva8fv7 wrote

[deleted]

−3

kichigai-ichiban t1_ivagpxf wrote

How does the price go up for medical marijuana if it becomes legal for recreation?

3

[deleted] t1_ivahupr wrote

[deleted]

−1

kichigai-ichiban t1_ival88d wrote

No really, I genuinely want to know. Maybe if you were more forward about how it fits together you might win more people over.

Is a 4% tax being added to medical or is that already in place? Is the price of the medical grade oil going up if it passes? I was not able to access the St Louis Dispatch article talking about this since it's behind a paywall.

I mean, in general it will probably help the doctors if they do not need to screen out the people trying to get a med script for non-med use vs those who need actually it.

3

Frosty-Succotash8126 OP t1_iv78kw1 wrote

That has been my general consensus, 3 is iffy because it would go to help reduce marijuana arrests but it also leads to the mass manufacturing of weed products

−15

Second-Stage-Panda t1_iv7la7o wrote

Fuck the corpos, but also fuck the cops. They should not be arresting people for weed. If these pigs are going to do their job, they should take care of rapists and shitty murderers. Not fill their pockets with petty fines and fucking over people over a plant.

If 3 passed, then it would possibly make more headway into more locally grown and sold sources and more people getting out of prison for a shitty low level “drug offense”.

It’s about change, which unfortunately takes time and the effort of the people.

20

Frosty-Succotash8126 OP t1_iv7loh5 wrote

That’s been my thought on it exactly… Weed shouldn’t be an arrestable offense, but if it gets legalized nationally it’s only a matter of time before big corporations get into play and billionaires start selling kush

−4

Second-Stage-Panda t1_iv7mb6j wrote

Unfortunately, that will happen because everything positive that happens will be touched upon by corporations.

Best you can do is speak out against any corpo and only give your money to local businesses that you can support, no matter the cost.

EDIT: Support the local businesses that you are willing to support.

8

Low_Tourist t1_iv80mpq wrote

Billionaires are already invested in the industry, esp where it's been legalized recreationally.

7

banjomin t1_iv7bl1b wrote

Lol, you have a 6 day old comment about using vape cartridges which are 100% certainly mass-produced.

10

Trixxxxxi t1_iv7lcxf wrote

I swear its always the biggest pot heads that will vote no on recreational marijuana because of some dumb ass reason.

14

Arc-ansas t1_iv91ryb wrote

Seriously. If all 5 states on the ballot pass, we'll be at 24 legalized states and build momentum to federally end cannabis prohibition. This is part of national strategy too. Vote yes.

4

toucansammi t1_iv8cyue wrote

Real people are sitting in jails across the state hoping it passes. It includes protections for employees using medicinally. It expands and increases accessibility to medicinal patients. Increases funding for treatment programs & public defenders offices. And they must give at least 144 micro businesses licenses within the first five years.

The campaign against this has been largely misinformation. Is it perfect? No. But it’s honestly pretty damn good and way better than most states do on their first round of legalization legislation.

10

Arc-ansas t1_iv91jux wrote

What? You'd rather have 9,000 arrested every year and not be able to legally purchase cannabis? It's not mass produced. There are already over 100 different cannabis companies in Missouri and issue 3 leads to even more competition including micro licenses.

6

Saltpork545 t1_iv8ijz7 wrote

You are not getting non-mass produced marijuana products. That ship sailed 20+ years ago when big tobacco started spending time and money in marijuana.

3 is as good as we're likely to get. Don't let good be the enemy of perfect. In politics, you never get perfect.

3