Submitted by Jimithyashford t3_yp3xb9 in springfieldMO

I figured it has something to do with the house that was torn down on the corner of national and sunshine, but I’m having a hard time figuring out what exactly.

Nobody “took” that house. Right? It was for sale and a developer bought it. These signs say “save our homes” but save them from what? There’s no imminent domain threat or anything is there? Nobody is “taking” their homes or threatening to are they?

What am I missing?

40

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

kernelpanic789 t1_ivh7am4 wrote

My buddy bought an abandoned house from the city and then that afternoon after closing they bulldozed it to the ground. I don't think it is related to what you're talking about, more just that the city doesn't know wtf it's doing

6

WorldFoods t1_ivh8dmr wrote

My understanding is that the neighbors have opposed using that house for anything other than a family living there. They even were against someone using it as a guesthouse for families who have a family member in the hospital. No one wanted to buy it so it sat abandoned for years. Then a developer bought it — I actually just met him bc he is a neighbor. He told me the house was in such disrepair that the wood was rotting, and the people who had tried to live there had astronomical utility costs because it wasn’t well-insulated.

22

punkass-bookjockey t1_ivh8w7v wrote

The developers who bought the house also bought several home around it—in University Heights. They want to rezone it for commercial, retail, possibly loft style living as well. The city hasn’t had a zoning meeting yet but the developers knocked down the house anyway.

The neighborhood is worried they’ll continue to knock down historic homes and basically destroy the neighborhood as they know it, albeit through traffic, home values, etc.

53

WendyArmbuster t1_ivhecmg wrote

>What am I missing?

The fact that what you live next door to is a huge influence on your quality of life and property value. I mean, they may not take their actual homes, but they don't want the property next door rezoned into a gas station.

10

WorldFoods t1_ivhj3xk wrote

He also said that there is a meeting — I think tomorrow night? For the neighborhood and anybody else who is interested where they plan to unveil what they hope to do.

−2

417SKCFAN t1_ivhlau2 wrote

I pulled utility bills from 2020-2022 for the property, which is public info and the highest average monthly bill for a quarter was $373.04 for July-September 2022. Most others were in the $90-$150 range, that is actually really good for a 4400 square foot house.

It also isn’t a shock that an older large house built 90 years ago would need some updates.

15

417SKCFAN t1_ivhotd6 wrote

https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2022/10/04/springfield-university-heights-home-demolished-amid-rezoning-dispute/69538428007/

And that is what happened Tuesday morning as a wrecking crew demolished the 90-year-old colonial-style home. More demolitions could occur as Be Kind & Merciful, Duda's development company, has applied for demolition permits for the homes at 1745 S. National Ave., 1739 S. National Ave. and 1119 E. Sunshine St, according to online records.

14

Aimless78 t1_ivi1986 wrote

The problem is that the land deeds for University Heights have a clause written into them that the property cannot be zoned for commercial or multiple family residences. The original wording for those deeds is nearly 100 years old and the developer is trying to change it without the people's input through the ballot box.

19

pexelto t1_iviky77 wrote

I know the neighborhood is concerned about the property being rezoned as commercial, but I don't believe that is their biggest concern.

The main reason I've heard is that those streets to the NW of National and Sunshine have always been low traffic, only used by people that actually live there.

Part of building right on that corner will be that the entrances and exits from the business will have to be on University Street. Maybe entrances, but how is anyone going to leave a business on the corner of one of the busies intersections in town? So, instead of a the quiet side street they've had for years, now there will be a lot more traffic.

I get people saying, "Who cares, it's legal and get over it", but I've been in the same situation in another area of town. A developer comes in and says, "No really, it will totally not change anything for you guys." But, now I have 10x more traffic down what used to be a very quiet side street in front of my house, accidents, people parking where they shouldn't, etc.

Just saying they're not just some NIMBY activists not wanting historic houses torn down, they're worried about the impacts a little further out.

12

Wyldfire2112 t1_iviwtk2 wrote

>1755 S National Ave

Yep, it's power only and not enough to match up with actual habitation.

Combined with zero gas or water usage, that tells me those bills are basically for having things connected.

9

417SKCFAN t1_ivjn0s4 wrote

Quite probably, but we know the developers claim they were having $800 utility bills as part of why they tore it down, the evidence through CU’s website shows that doesn’t seem to be the case.

https://sgfcitizen.org/economy-growth/university-heights-historic-home-boarded-up-while-residents-were-at-meeting-to-discuss-saving-it/

Ralph Duda III with BK&M said the tenants that were living in the home were moved to a different property, and the building was boarded up because the house is deteriorating.

“There was issue after issue,” Duda said. “Their utility bill was close to $800 a month. The insulation is terrible. The windows are bad. There’s frequent leaks. Drains don’t drain. The HVAC air-conditioning unit blew out (and) a lot of wood rot around the house.

5

Jimithyashford OP t1_ivjsna0 wrote

So I feel like I have a clear understanding here of what the people in that community DON’T want, which is for homes in this neighborhood to be anything other than single family dwellings, and presumably single family dwellings owned by the “right” kind of people, with the money to maintain them in a snazzy well manicured upper middle class kind of way.

So then what I don’t get is….what DO they want then? If you’ve got a big fancy house, an old, expensive, kinda a money pit, type of house, and it’s on the market for years and years, nobody wants to own it as a primary single family dwelling….well what then? I mean eventually someone has to do something with it or it will become derelict and fall into ruin and be full of squatters. So what do they want? I mean I know what they want, for these houses to be bought by doctors and lawyers to keep the neighborhood like it is, but most people with the kind of money to buy a big century old money pit are instead buying McMansions out by the river, they don’t wanna live in the middle of town anymore. So if the houses aren’t being bought….then what?

There are many other neighborhoods in town full of what we’re once grand of upper middle class or rich person houses, that are now in terrible shape or are trap houses. If someone doesn’t do something with them, isn’t the the fate they are inviting?

3

Wrinklestiltskin t1_ivjt6rj wrote

> But, now I have 10x more traffic down what used to be a very quiet side street in front of my house, accidents, people parking where they shouldn't, etc.

A couple other honorable mentions is all the broken glass (beer bottles) and used syringes that come with more traffic.

7

sullivan80 t1_ivk1gby wrote

Developers that want to tear down something WANT it to be in bad shape because the more of an eyesore it is the less resistance there will be in demolishing it.

I used to live in Webb City near Joplin and there were a bunch of large old homes along a road that had become very busy over the years and there was increasing pressure to convert to commercial but there was a lot of resistance in the community. People really didn't want to live in the homes on such a busy road with 4 lanes of traffic. But others didn't like the idea of losing the large trees, pretty homes etc and just seeing more strip malls and fast food.

One developer bought a bunch of the homes and to appease the town he actually MOVED several of them. He was supposed to leave the large trees in place but all of a sudden oops one day the equipment operated apparently didn't get the memo and cleared them to make way for a large strip mall, parking lot and fast food restaurant.

Over time most of the homes have sat abandoned and rotted to the point no one cared anymore and one by one they've been torn down to make way for a dollar store, car wash, dominoes, dairy queen, several strip malls. It's a long game but eventually developers can win approval through basic neglect.

5

Ballyhoo-45 t1_ivkf9xa wrote

Well today is the day voters approve it so will all of you be quiet after that? You don’t own the roads, the park, or the development in this town. It’s getting a little obnoxious.

−7

Aimless78 t1_ivkuu62 wrote

And the developer doesn't own any of that either so maybe he ought to stop pushing developments in areas that they aren't wanted. There are plenty of areas that are available for development that don't require changing the zoning or need special consideration.

0

Aimless78 t1_ivl8oos wrote

I completely understand it but I also understand keeping historical things preserved. You are probably the type of person that would destroy a beautiful old building that has been around for 100+ years and put up a sterile ugly building in the name of progress.

2

Ballyhoo-45 t1_ivldh0w wrote

Development is meant to meet the needs of the entire community. You may get a voice, but it’s far from the only one considered. City leaders, engineers and the business and education community fully support this project.Full speed ahead!

−2

Aimless78 t1_ivlih43 wrote

Yes but sometimes those people don't have the community in mind They have kickbacks, bribes, and just pure profit in mind with disregard to what is needed or wanted.

2

Aimless78 t1_ivlio3y wrote

And I love how you are saying my voice is only one voice, which you don't want to hear but yet your voice should be heard and valued more. Why on Earth is your opinion any more valid than mine? (Hint: it is not!)

2

Ballyhoo-45 t1_ivm2hmz wrote

That pure conjecture and you know it. Can’t you disagree with real arguments?

For the rest of the city, this is an objective issue about development and business and the needs of Springfield. For you and your neighbors it is an emotional decision.

1

Aimless78 t1_ivntsy5 wrote

I am not confusing the ballot measures. If this measure had been approved it would give an open door to affect the zoning of this area as well. Why do you think the people in University Heights were so opposed to it?

0

Aimless78 t1_ivnu6n3 wrote

They want a single family home to be put up, not commercial property, apartments, or a combination of the two. The biggest problem with that specific property being turned commercial is that is the 2nd busiest intersection in the city and to add more traffic by making it a commercial property is just insane! The developer also wanted to knock down the other three 1930s mansions along National and get University Avenue closed right there to build whatever monstrosity he wants to build.

1

Aimless78 t1_ivnugr6 wrote

I don't even live in that neighborhood so it is not emotional for me and my neighbors. I do feel that we don't need to tear down every old building in the name of progress. Take a look at thr apartments they built where the YWCA used to be downtown, they were built so quickly and so poorly that they have had nothing but problems since being built. Just what the students that occupy that building want because nothing says home like backed up sewage, electrical issues, and other problems.

2

417SKCFAN t1_ivo9x69 wrote

Springfield has a specific path to override the zoning board, the Galloway project ended up getting 70% no. Turns out developers aren’t just able to do whatever they want.

1

pexelto t1_ivxe9pj wrote

You're missing the point, James. The house on the corner of National was just what people focused on because it was historic.

The issue isn't that one house. The people who live in the University Heights neighborhood will now have commercial traffic where they've never had it before. The development won't just be that one property. Because they're building on one of the busiest intersections in the city, the main ingress and egress will have to be on what used to be quiet side streets.

You can disagree with them and say it's progress, but at least know the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with anyone caring about the "right kind" of people. If you'd read the articles, you'd know that it's going to be a doctor's office, retail space, and "executive lofts".

The right kind of people, you say.

1

Jimithyashford OP t1_ivyd570 wrote

Sorry, but by “right kind of people” I meant “people who have the financial resources to maintain that neighborhood in the condition it’s it”

Cause if you’ve got these big empty houses that the wealthy folks have moved out of, and you insist that is can only be a single family dwelling and you can’t tear it down and build lower income housing, then you are left with only two courses: either they stay empty and eventually fall into ruin, or the cost goes down down down until eventually you get a lower income buyer who cannot afford to maintain these grand old manicured properties and they fall into disrepair anyway.

I under stand their concern. But I don’t understand their solution. What on earth do they want? They want the “right” kind of people to buy the houses and live in them and keep them pretty. Right?

But it seems like Those buyers just aren’t there. Wasn’t that house on the corner for sale of ages?

1