Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cloud_Disconnected OP t1_ivowqxp wrote

Reply to comment by jdjohnson in Galloway zoning issue fails, blocking plans for development across from Sequiota Park by Cloud_Disconnected

Interesting point. What is the argument that shows that building luxury apartments and storage units in that particular area creates a stronger community?

35

jdjohnson t1_ivp1vei wrote

I’m not an advocate for this specific issue. Only expressing that we sometimes get caught up in right and wrong when there’s 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.

There’s middle ground here but too few people sincerely interested in finding it.

6

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.

15

jdjohnson t1_ivpff3i wrote

I can see your points and generally agree that the advocates didn’t 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 don’t think low income housing would have faired any better, for example.

8

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."

9

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 can’t see the benefit of that project then our city might as well just resign themselves to little to no major changes coming. We can’t address affordable housing without denser housing. We can’t recruit higher paying companies to our area if they can’t get their projects built or find quality workers. These issues require bold vision and changes at times. I’ve met many of these city leaders and I for one believe they have good intentions for our community and citizens.

3

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.

2

sgfjb t1_ivrlmqw wrote

I don’t think many thought the outcome would be that lopsided, so I agree, this did indicate a major disconnect.

As for the other issues, I don’t 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 don’t preclude progress in areas such as economic development. Trust is clearly an issue to some, which is what I imagine what you’re getting at. It’s a shame, because from what I’ve witnessed our city leaders are good people with good intentions.

0

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.

1