Outrageous-Ad-2761 t1_ivoqhz5 wrote
Hate to see all the mad people who didn't fully understand how much it would have actually hurt the area š¤·āāļø oh well happy it didn't pass
socialistpizzaparty t1_ivp4m8l wrote
I originally supported this but the more I read up on the history between the city, developer, and the citizens group, it really changed my mind. We have some great people on this sub that really care about informing folks.
jdjohnson t1_ivoseia wrote
It is more likely that people have different views on what creates a strong community rather than this being an issue where those you disagree with are uninformed.
Cloud_Disconnected OP t1_ivowqxp wrote
Interesting point. What is the argument that shows that building luxury apartments and storage units in that particular area creates a stronger community?
jdjohnson t1_ivp1vei wrote
Iām not an advocate for this specific issue. Only expressing that we sometimes get caught up in right and wrong when thereās quite a bit of nuance.
I did serve on a planning committee for the neighborhood some years ago (I live and work near the park), and some of the objectives created by the group were buildings that felt as if they aesthetically belonged, lots of green space, and a walkable neighborhood.
Thereās middle ground here but too few people sincerely interested in finding it.
Cloud_Disconnected OP t1_ivp7fc4 wrote
I did not see any persuasive arguments that the development would be a net benefit for the community or the city as a whole. The yes campaign were relying on a false dichotomy of "development at any cost" or "no development at all," and were using scare tactics, i.e. "voting no will scare off future developers." That indicated to me that there was no real benefit to rezoning aside from that gained by the developers.
There was no middle ground on the ballot question, it was a yes or no vote. Given those facts, I had to vote no.
jdjohnson t1_ivpff3i wrote
I can see your points and generally agree that the advocates didnāt make the best case. Still, I believe the core issue is a lack of alignment on what the neighborhood should become or if it should change at all. Then it comes down to a handful of folks advocating for their own best interests.
I donāt think low income housing would have faired any better, for example.
Cloud_Disconnected OP t1_ivpmstj wrote
That lack of alignment is a larger issue. Between Grant Avenue Parkway, University Heights and Galloway, it's becoming clear that there's a small group of city leaders, developers, and influential citizens that have a particular vision for the future of Springfield, and the majority of the voting public, we can see from the numbers last night, are not on board with it.
Personally I found Cliff Smart's comment that allowing citizens to vote on rezoning sets "a very, very dangerous precedent" a bit ominous. What I took from that was, "sit down and shut up, because we know what's best for you."
sgfjb t1_ivqz0od wrote
I think a public vote on every rezoning ties up a ton of time, money and resources and is the reason we elect leaders to approve these items. Public votes should be used very sparsely when there is a major disconnect. You are right about the vision part and the city has hosted hundreds of meetings and gathered tons of input to the pave the way for our city to progress. Grant Avenue is actually a perfect example of the first result of that planning. If Springfieldians canāt see the benefit of that project then our city might as well just resign themselves to little to no major changes coming. We canāt address affordable housing without denser housing. We canāt recruit higher paying companies to our area if they canāt get their projects built or find quality workers. These issues require bold vision and changes at times. Iāve met many of these city leaders and I for one believe they have good intentions for our community and citizens.
Cloud_Disconnected OP t1_ivri0us wrote
Obviously no one is calling for a vote on every rezoning issue, that's too ridiculous to even consider. However, when City Council votes unanimously to approve a rezoning and the vote comes out 70-30 percent against, that constitutes a major disconnect.
Good intentions and bold visions aside, people might be more receptive if we saw some substantive steps toward addressing issues that are more pressing than attracting out of state investors--poverty, homelessness, crime, and hunger, to name a few.
sgfjb t1_ivrlmqw wrote
I donāt think many thought the outcome would be that lopsided, so I agree, this did indicate a major disconnect.
As for the other issues, I donāt think council addressing or not addressing one area has much to do with the other. They are separate issues, requiring separate commissions, staff and recommendations to be voted on and donāt preclude progress in areas such as economic development. Trust is clearly an issue to some, which is what I imagine what youāre getting at. Itās a shame, because from what Iāve witnessed our city leaders are good people with good intentions.
Cloud_Disconnected OP t1_ivroyh9 wrote
If I go to work tomorrow and my boss expects me to close five tickets for critical issues, and instead I spend the day cleaning out the supply closet, he's not going to feel like I'm being very effective or that I am prioritizing my tasks appropriately. I may be a good person and have good intentions, but at the end of the day I didn't do what he needed me to do.
When the city is asking for buy-in on projects like this but aren't delivering in other areas, yes, it's a trust issue, but it's also an issue of prioritization. Progress in economic development is important, but I don't see any progress whatsoever being made in the other areas I mentioned, or even any effort to address them.
Outrageous-Ad-2761 t1_ivosieu wrote
both a fair and valid point.
WorldFoods t1_ivot25j wrote
Really agree with this comment.
mophan t1_ivpw57f wrote
I usually am against NIMBYism but with so much infill land available much closer to the core of the city I felt it would be such a tragic loss to the environment to build this development at this location when there are so many more suitable areas available.
robzilla71173 t1_ivp4dka wrote
Speaking for myself I saw it as a class warfare issue. The people of galloway aren't going to stand up to fight development in our neighborhoods. In fact, that corner of town sometimes drives the commercial development that encroaches on mine. We had the same problem with an apartment complex being built a few years ago uphill from us in our flood prone area and our protests fell on deaf ears. Since then we've had a factory move in that blocks the sunsets and drowns out the stars from the park where we used to watch them. The park itself is now being covered in astroturf, which will be great for the soccer parents who flock here from the other end of town but makes it pretty hard to enjoy for the people who bought houses next to it. I don't even know why they just bulldozed two acres of trees down the block from me but I assume it's a parking lot or strip mall. We don't get to fight those things and the people who do have the means to fight them don't really worry about them outside of their own neighborhood so it was hard to be asked to vote no to help them.
The No signs where I live are on commercial property. When the guy who owns a derelict gas station that attracts squatters yards away from where your kids play asks you to please vote to protect the sanctity of his house from the dangers of luxury apartments, it's hard to not get mad.
Embarrassed_Feed_145 t1_ivp96h7 wrote
this is where i stood too, it was really hard for me to have sympathy for them when they dont care about the actual problems. but on the other side, i felt we dont need more inaccessible housing, so i was pretty torn lol
robzilla71173 t1_ivpdzi3 wrote
I get that second thing. I wavered back and forth a bit at first and that might not have happened if it weren't about luxury apartments. But then again I think the neighborhood would have opposed it even more vigorously in that case. It just had a NIMBY feel to it from the beginning. Plus, they bought their houses when there was an active gravel quarry, I remember how loud and dusty that neighborhood used to be. So the argument that it would ruin their neighborhood seemed kind of hollow to me. Really this group and some of these discussions affected my opinion. I saw people talking about how this sort of thing didn't belong on that end of town and I kept wondering why it wouldn't. They put all that work into making it a walkable, inviting neighborhood and it seemed like they were now shutting it down for new people. I really am happy for the residents, now hopefully they'll carry some of that goodwill into my neighborhood when soccer season comes back and maybe they'll keep in mind that people live there who need to get around and don't enjoy old socks and trash all over the park. Hopefully.
the_honeyman t1_ivpjvjq wrote
They won't, I was told on this sub by the loudest voices against this proposal that if low income neighborhoods wanted to stop development they should pony up the resources to do it, otherwise tough shit.
robzilla71173 t1_ivpv86y wrote
We did fight it in my neighborhood. We just didn't have the means to take it to court or get it on a ballot. But we went to zoning meetings and it didn't matter. In my parents neighborhood a developer actually tore the windows and doors off the houses and told them they wouldn't finish demolition until the zoning change was approved.
the_honeyman t1_ivpy1pf wrote
Exactly. Nobody cares unless you have enough money to buy somebody. So fuck it, good for the goose, good for the gander and all that.
robzilla71173 t1_ivpuwmy wrote
I remember reading that comment and its when my no became a yes for sure.
the_honeyman t1_ivpxty3 wrote
Same. I was on the fence about it mostly until then, but the fucking audacity and arrogance put on display cemented my choice.
robzilla71173 t1_ivq747z wrote
It seems like any other day, this group wants more mass housing in walkable neighborhoods. Except just not their neighborhood?
WendyArmbuster t1_ivraa3a wrote
It may seem that way, but you've got to remember, most people don't want mass housing. No young kid says, "When I grow up I'm going to live in an apartment!" People look at the heat maps of reported crime and see the obvious relationship between high density apartments and rentals and crime. Nobody aspires to work in a call center, go home to an apartment, and spend their evenings taking mad bong rips and playing video games outside of the Reddit community. I mean, it was fun in college, but as an adult? Nobody wants that.
robzilla71173 t1_ivrcp5r wrote
The people in this group are who we're talking about. It's weird to watch the group think reverse course.
WendyArmbuster t1_ivrv7xf wrote
I don't think there's as many people who are for high density housing as it seems though. They're just loud about it. Even the ones who are for high density housing aren't really for luxury high density housing, especially when it's plopped right across from a favorite park.
Me personally, I hate apartments, and especially when they're placed in existing neighborhoods. I hate the lifestyle it forces the residents to endure. I hate the inability to earn equity on your housing budget. I hate how landlords get richer and tenants get nothing in the long term. I hate how they destroy the value and character of neighborhoods. I hate that you can't practice your trumpet or drums there, do woodworking projects, store your canoe, work on your own vehicle, build a skateboarding half-pipe, or grow a garden. I hate the consumer lifestyle apartments promote.
the_honeyman t1_ivqb8ju wrote
Bazinga.
robzilla71173 t1_ivp6xhi wrote
Yes, downvoting me for expressing my honest opinion really wins my heart and mind over to your cause.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments