Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Wallampa t1_ivgktcd wrote

This is some nimby shit. I'm voting yes.

−17

wederservebetter OP t1_ivh6psk wrote

I fought against city council years ago because they let a developer destroy my neighborhood and lost a lot of money on my home because of it. Why shouldn't we fight?

Not one of those council members would want commercial development next to their homes. We have a right to fight against these money grabbing people.

7

banjomin t1_ivgxf50 wrote

I don't live in the area but I don't want the park to be turned into a dark swamp. Am I a nimby? And if so, can you explain why?

6

Wallampa t1_ivha6ic wrote

How would it turn the park into a swamp? Seems like they largely wanted to turn that shitty old quarry into something useful.

We can fix high housing prices by building apartment complexes and bring business to the area with other businesses. Just look at the other new apartments.

Ffs it's a bunch of rich people upset that their property values will go down despite it being progress for the city's growth.

−6

banjomin t1_ivhdk3r wrote

Gonna explain why you're wrong on each point, in order:

>How would it turn the park into a swamp? Seems like they largely wanted to turn that shitty old quarry into something useful.

Nah man, if you looked at the development plan you'd know that instead of having to create a detention area for storm drainage, the dude just has to put a pipe under the street sending storm drainage INTO THE PARK. The area is already prone to flooding, there are signs about it up all around in the area. This is part of what people are pissed about, the dude is going to replace a bunch of area that currently absorbs water with a concrete funnel that sends that drainage into the park.

>We can fix high housing prices by building apartment complexes and bring business to the area with other businesses. Just look at the other new apartments.

This is supply-side trickle-down bullshit that is not accurate to real life. More corporate-owned boutique apartments for rich kids will not somehow create the affordable housing we need.

Yes, a development in that spot would bring more money to the area. We don't have to give a developer a bunch of tax breaks, and permission to ignore a bunch of regulations that keep the park from being swampified to get a development there. The city and the developer just thought they'd be able to do that without anyone noticing beforehand.

>Ffs it's a bunch of rich people upset that their property values will go down despite it being progress for the city's growth.

Ffs it's a wealthy developer who is mad that the mayor told him he could fuck the park but the town isn't letting him.

7

Wallampa t1_ivhg1ep wrote

You make some good arguments. You gotta link to that development plan?

EDIT: Also, how would more housing not alleviate prices? Even if it's for rich people, it would leave more houses for the rest of us?

Besides it's currently zoned for single family homes. Changing the zoning would allow future, more affordable developments.

−1

EcoAffinity t1_ivh5xdr wrote

It's also about a rich couple who thought they could bully their way into a big payout and gambled on being able to change zoning so they can build high end apartments. I'm not sacrificing our natural resources so some capitalist can profit.

5