Nixa’s Giddens Says Developers Consider Springfield Closed For Business.

Submitted by [deleted] t3_10myozy in springfieldMO

Nixa council member Jarad Giddens insinuated the anti-development win in Galloway has developers considering Springfield “closed for business”. I know there has been arguments supporting and disproving this, but I truly believe those who voted against the development in Galloway shot themselves and Springfield in the foot as far as future development and growth is concerned. While it may be temporary, those in that neighborhood (including the woman running for mayor) didn’t consider the city as a whole and the impact that vote would have in the long run future of the city. Was that the goal? Thoughts?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TWR3545 t1_j660ivy wrote

There’s other places in town to develop, and if the people in the neighborhood don’t want it I think that’s what matters.

Maybe it’s just me but as a native Springfielder I don’t care what a Nixa council member insinuates

94

EcoAffinity t1_j662sok wrote

I don't give a shit what someone from Nixa thinks about Springfield's neighborhood development.

70

Trixxxxxi t1_j663wgr wrote

Right? Considering what a cluster fuck Nixa is their opinion means nothing.

32

GundleFly t1_j672grx wrote

Oh man, the Nixa city council and Mayor of Nixa could give a flying fuck about their constituents.

19

[deleted] OP t1_j666jpq wrote

Ignoring that Springfield is a cluster fuck fuck, okay. Poorest city in the state. One of the most dangerous cities in the state. One of the highest, if not highest homeless population in the state. Potholes for days. Churches on every corner, almost literally. Chicken for miles. Yet, dOnT ToUcH ThIs HiLl!!! This hill right here. This one in particular. Eek!!! Yeah, Nixa is the clusterfuck.

−17

EcoAffinity t1_j66cjlm wrote

>One of the most dangerous cities in the state

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA alrighty then.

18

STLrep t1_j67vzu6 wrote

Springfield is pretty much a war zone okay?!

4

[deleted] OP t1_j66dprm wrote

Whenever the response is something like this it just tells me the nail was hit on the head and there was no relevant argument but to seem “heard”, a response like this occurs. Bless your heart. Excuse me, bless yer heart. Chick-fil-A!!!

−11

EcoAffinity t1_j66oszo wrote

I realized long ago it's not worth arguing with ignorant people who refuse to even understand the basics of their supposed opinion - or moreso what they've been told to believe. Go to any other post here claiming Springfield is dangerous, and find the facts of why that is laughably wrong and simply misinformation spread by people too afraid to even cross north of Sunshine.

Nevermind the pothole issue is simple thermodynamics that happen every single year in every place that gets freezing weather. And the city repairs them every single year.

15

Zahille7 t1_j6c8cx5 wrote

I read their comment and just thought "have you driven around any part of St. Louis for any amount of time?"

3

[deleted] OP t1_j665esv wrote

Nixa should take some pointers on how to lay out a clusterfuck of a grid because driving in Nixa SUCKS worse than Springfield’s potholes!

3

CleanCoffeemaker t1_j66tkmh wrote

If you want to develop in Springfield, can't you just make sure it's properly zoned for the project first?

34

VaderTower t1_j695wbn wrote

The problem is generally no where is zoned correctly for this type of high density use, and for sale.

Typically when you want to build something of scale (outside of an industrial building in an industrial park) you need a zoning change and/or variances.

4

Guitarstringman t1_j664kee wrote

So you can never say no to a developer, why even have hearings?

32

[deleted] OP t1_j665qeq wrote

That wasn’t said, but at some point there must be compromise instead of immediate refusal. People are angry about the Grant Street project. Why? People are angry about the developments on Battlefield. Why?

−7

EpicMemorableName t1_j67au0l wrote

Why?... Do they not say why at hearings? Seems like that's good place to have reasons for or against things heard.

11

Glam-Breakfast t1_j666haa wrote

If it means we’re closed off to more soulless Quarrytowns and endless giant apartment buildings that nobody here can actually afford, good!

26

[deleted] OP t1_j666w98 wrote

Single family houses are at an all time high too. Why did y’all allow Quarrytown to happen? Was that hill okay? That hill is fine, but NOT THIS HILL!!! God forbid!!! Save my sunsets! Save my busted ass road! Save my view of the actual quarry!!!

−8

malevolentk t1_j66z4as wrote

I care 0% what a Nixa council member thinks about ANYTHING

Folks aren’t anti development- they are anti shoddily built apartment complexes that will look like shit in 20 years across the street from a beloved park that already has shady access because the road needs to be redone

I think folks would be fine with condos or townhomes there - but we really don’t need more apartments in that area.

26

22TopShelf22 t1_j68y3qj wrote

How would you suggest fixing the lack of affordable housing? Typically apartments fill this need. As far as describing them as shoddy construction, what apartments built in springfield in the last 20 years look the way you describe them to be?

1

Zahille7 t1_j6c8x2y wrote

English Village. Was forced to move out because our upstairs neighbor broke their water pipe and flooded our place. My bedroom wasn't properly insulated, so I could feel the cold through the walls and window, as well as feel them "sweat" with condensation (my bedroom window would actually have water forming on the inside, and I found mold growing around the windowsill/frame a couple different times because of this). My main closet had mold growing on the back exterior wall.

Not to mention the weird-ass bathroom design of having the toilet and tiny shower in one closet-sized booth, then having the sink and counter with the vanity outside of that, in the bedroom proper with carpet running in front of it. Thank God there was no carpet by the shower or toilet, cause that would have extra gross.

2

Own_Ear_7356toss t1_j673sni wrote

We do need more afforable (apartments) housing, but just admit it you're a nimby

−9

malevolentk t1_j67hjf5 wrote

I don’t even live over there

We need more affordable housing for people to BUY - not shitty rentals

The lack of entry level, affordable housing in good condition in this city is shameful

14

VaderTower t1_j696x1l wrote

Getting quality entry level, affordable housing, requires money being allocated from the city or state. No one is going to build a house or apartment that loses money for the good of society on their own dime.

Kind of like I wouldn't be willing to buy an extra house, and rent it for less than my loan for it, effectively losing money. A developer just won't develop any new property, entry level, workforce, luxury, etc if they aren't going to make money.

1

FrozenBearMo t1_j66ai1f wrote

Springfield is filled with NIMBY’s. They don’t want a homeless population, but also no homeless shelters. Lower rents, but no developments. More jobs, but no new businesses.

25

Fallout_NewCheese t1_j66j2r4 wrote

Yeah we need to build more strip malls there's not enough empty ones in town already. Also in what world does literally anything cause rent to go down it's almost universally gone up over time. Some more random developments are not going to lower rent. We have plenty of overpriced apartments that sit half empty because no one can afford them. There's also not really a job shortage so much as there's a wage shortage. We don't need more jobs we need jobs that actually pay a living wage in the first place. I do agree that we do absolutely need more homeless shelters though fuck anyone that tries to say otherwise. People should be starving and freezing on the streets.

15

whattheduce86 t1_j66qpw7 wrote

Some of those homeless people are gonna choose to be homeless regardless of the help, but the ones who want should def have a free place to go and maybe someway to volunteer or work to earn their stay.

2

Own_Ear_7356toss t1_j673hh1 wrote

Read this fast. The reddit crowd always downvotes this plain, clear truth. Some homeless don't want a home.

−1

Fallout_NewCheese t1_j69cyef wrote

I don't understand why you're saying this like it's a gotcha. Someone wanting to be nomadic is fine. But that changes literally nothing in terms of building shelters for the people that are homeless due to not being able to afford to survive in this country anymore. I also believe that part of the small group of homeless people that prefers being nomadic prefers it because there's zero point in trying to work 40 hours a week and survive off the low wages in this area with the skyrocketing rent and cost of living. So yeah some people are genuinely happiest being nomadic but let's be honest part of that is because of how incredibly difficult it is to be a "functional member of society" at this point. Shit if I wasn't fortunate enough to be able to squeeze into a spare room with a family member and help them out in return, then I'd have given into my own mental illness and just started living on the streets when I lost my job a few months ago. I would also probably think being homeless was better than when I had housing before in that case. Not having to deal with the stress of paying someone elses mortgage every month, or dealing with some dickhead boss or shitty job to not even have enough pay minimum bills and still buy food. Like yeah of course some people would rather live in a van it's much more feasible than taking part in "normal" society at this point and committing 5 or more days a week to slaving away for someone else.

5

VaderTower t1_j697ehr wrote

Supply and demand, if you build more apartments/homes (add supply) it will drive demand down, when that happens a unit will sit empty and a landlord will have to decide if they want to lose money on keeping it unoccupied or rent it cheap to have someone there.

−1

22TopShelf22 t1_j6a46jx wrote

No. Increased supply means increased competition which means decreased rents.

5

VaderTower t1_j6astlj wrote

I feel like you reiterated my point, are you disagreeing?

Increased supply (more units built to rent), decreases demand (less people wanting to rent) by increasing competition (more units on the market vying for the same set number of renters), means decreased rent.

I suppose my point of leaving a unit empty or decreasing rent was somewhat reductionist, but still what will happen.

Ultimately the only point, that isn't up for debate is that... More units built = cheaper rent.

1

22TopShelf22 t1_j68trn5 wrote

McDonald's has never been a living wage job. Want to earn more money, get a new skill or a better job. Entry level, low skill jobs aren't jobs that can pay a living wage. Force an employer to pay $20 for McDonald's help and they will make machines to do the work instead of paying people with limited skills to do the job. It actually hurts people with a basic / limited skill set.

−10

Dramatic_Ad_6560 t1_j67fn28 wrote

Imo, developers seem to keep making themselves the victim in these situations... i.e. expanding more into an already overcrowded Galloway, or adding additional traffic and sending a middle finger to the entire neighborhood of University Heights. They bulldoze (literally and metaphorically) over the wishes of the people who can make or break their development and are affected most by them, and then they cry foul when people don't support these proposals.

There are so many areas that would benefit from development in Springfield, but they only swarm to places that are already overdeveloped. National/Sunshine has already had multiple storefronts sit vacant since the buildings were constructed; why is putting more of the same there going to be beneficial for anyone? Why do we need more apartments and more traffic in one of the messiest intersections in town? The additions near 65/south of Chestnut seem to be doing well and there is space to grow there, but many developers are still only looking at spaces that aren't practical. I understand concerns about the NIMBY mindset, but I don't see that to be an issue in the controversial development proposals recently; I think their concerns are extremely valid and the developers should've addressed them before doing anything else.

11

dannyjbixby t1_j6655ob wrote

Lol no

9

[deleted] OP t1_j665h7h wrote

Context?

−2

dannyjbixby t1_j665pye wrote

Context of the “lol no?”

It would be in response to your post. Both to the question you posed and Gidden’s insinuation. They’re so wrong it’s laughable.

13

[deleted] OP t1_j6665ud wrote

How are both ‘wrong’? What makes either ‘wrong’? There is nothing wrong with development. There is nothing wrong with what Gidden’s insinuated. He is correct. Does it make Bach and the balking of ‘Springfielders’ to development destructive? Does his statement that Bach and the fight against developing that particular location in Galloway closed Springfield for business seem plausible? Absolutely. To say it is wrong and Bach correct is laughable. That’s impossible.

−7

BornLightWolf t1_j696zru wrote

Right, "closed for business" sounds like someone had a vestment in it opening and is salty about it not going through. If Galloways was so spectacular, they could have built it anywhere and still drawn people to it. Location is important but there was probably still plenty of other places that they could have built.

8

big_daddy68 t1_j687e7j wrote

This is dumb, maybe if a dumbass didn’t propose to cut down a ton of trees in a park area it would have passed. Springfield is still a more attractive building area because it has the most dense population in the area. He is just grandstanding and letting developers know Nixa will do anything for some of those dollars, I mean ANYTHING. I also feel Nixa is seeing Republic growing with the addition of Amazon and such, and feel they might start slipping behind.

5

Zahille7 t1_j6c9jy3 wrote

I've been saying this for months now, but in about 5-10 years, Nixa, Ozark, Republic etc. will be considered "suburbs" of greater Springfield, similar to St. Charles in St. Louis, or Imperial Beach/Chula Vista in San Diego.

2

[deleted] OP t1_j67dgi5 wrote

[deleted]

3

Zahille7 t1_j6c9f6i wrote

I'm sure it was (I first moved here when I was a kid in 2005), but one thing I've noticed since I've been able to grow up in (basically what I consider) two places at once, is that a lot of people here still tend to think the world or even the city itself is the same as it was 20 years ago.

The city has expanded and grown quite a bit since then. We need to start spreading out, or spreading up. We also need more crosswalks and bike lanes. The lack of crosswalks and other pedestrian access is absolutely infuriating to me. Glenstone literally only has like 5 crosswalks going across it, throughout the entire length of the road through town.

2

pizzaburtito t1_j67oos4 wrote

The money from SGF developments will unshoot any feet.

2

flexpercep t1_j6danoe wrote

I think this whole “look what the democratic process did…are you happy you voted wrong” post implys strongly you’re a MAGA fan

2

armenia4ever t1_j6lsoz8 wrote

Or this post implied your a NIMBy California style...

1

Dbol504 t1_j66tmvz wrote

I will just repeat why I voted no on the Galloway thing. I was for it until the day of voting. The hard sell electioneering going on outside my polling location turned me off. Lady with a baby in a stroller in the rain. Was she saying to vote Democrat to support a woman's right to choose? No, she was pushing to vote in favor on Galloway. They played their hand too hard for me that it was the end of Springfield if we didn't pass it. I voted no to it to send a message to not be drama queens.

1

Dramatic_Ad_6560 t1_j6aente wrote

Honestly I have the same mindset a lot of the time lol. I feel like the ads for the project were disingenuous and went for the negative, i.e. "Springfield needs this development or else" mentality as opposed to "The growth of Galloway will benefit the city of Springfield in x, y, z ways." Their use of influential people from around the city as another bargaining chip was also weird. These tactics come off really shady and made me feel like I wasn't getting all of the truth, and like I mentioned in another comment, they neglected the people who actually live and work there, and I really dislike that longtime residents are being bulldozed for the sake of developers that won't care about Springfield in 10 years.

2

[deleted] OP t1_j6658tj wrote

Y’all haven’t had your afternoon nap, I see. I was asking for opinions, not hostility. That sort of supports my thoughts on the matter, that NIMBY state of mind. I’m a transplant and I quite frankly do not understand “Springfielders” nor how a city brimming with opportunity and ability to harness its position in the state and the region can also rank as the state’s poorest? I love this city and I support protecting neighborhoods, but I also believe there must be compromise. Again, I’m asking for a conversation, not rudeness. Thanks!

−3

Cloud_Disconnected t1_j667p59 wrote

If we're going to relitigate the Galloway issue, I'll ask the same question I asked then: specifically what was the actual benefit of the project to the neighborhood and the city?

I don't mean a avoiding scaring off developers. I mean the actual, measurable benefit of building luxury apartments and self-storage there in that spot, as opposed to a another location.

12

[deleted] OP t1_j668dw7 wrote

Oh! I like this question! You’re right, as far as that specific spot, nothing. BUT, it is extremely important because that specific spot decided the foreseeable future of development in “other spots” in Springfield. If I was a developer and witnessed the defeat by a lackluster neighborhood refusing to grow with a city, I would assume my money is no good and take my development elsewhere. It is the same with the other developments Springfield needs. That campaign, that decision, that vote, Bach, turned a page in Springfield’s history and it was not a positive one. That is part of why I shared what Nixa, a wealthy suburb of Springfield, is saying. Everybody looking in is seeing it like I saw that stunt. AND, Bach wants to be Mayor??? Developers will avoid this city like the plague it is and is becoming!

0

Cloud_Disconnected t1_j66tto2 wrote

Well there you go, without any concrete benefit I can't see how the rezoning is warranted. If a developer gets scared off by a rezoning that failed because the project wasn't beneficial to the city or the neighborhood and was rightly and soundly rejected by both, when the developer knew it was not zoned for the purpose they had in mind when they bought the property, then I am perfectly fine with them taking their money to Nixa, or whatever town wants to support that kind of development at any cost.

You bemoaned the hostility from others in this thread, but then you say things like "lackluster neighborhood," and "Developers will avoid this city like the plague it is and is becoming!" I can see where an attitude like that might very well inspire some "hostility."

Transplants cry around about how locals are so hostile to them while calling Springfield a clusterfuck and implying that "wealthier" Nixa knows better. This is why. People who move here love to tell everyone how backwards and awful Springfield is and how the town should be run like this or that town. Most people from Springfield wouldn't live in Nixa if you paid us, and you'd have to pay us a whole hell of a lot to afford living there.

10

EcoAffinity t1_j66q3ho wrote

>Nixa, a wealthy suburb of Springfield

Lol, you're saying this as if Nixa has some how culminated this wealth itself as a town when the fact it's a suburb of ~Springfield~ and its commerce has caused wealth to congregate there.

Your two posts and comments SOLELY negatively about Bach means you're likely some pathetic plant with ulterior motives for this mayoral election. These questions aren't genuine and you have presented ZERO facts about anything you've stated except some schmuck's response from a suburb.

7

Own_Ear_7356toss t1_j673ylr wrote

This is true. Springfield has been terrible to deal with from a city interface standpoint. They purchased some garbage software, so bad you would hope someone was bribed to buy it. Things used to be a lot easier. You could walk into the building department and walk out with a permit 30 minutes later. Not any more. The permitting process took me 10 days or so last time.

Regarding the hostility towards developers - why would anyone want to live on the corner of sunshine and national? What kind of fool would let their child play in the front yard there? What is it 80k cars daily combined on those 2 roads? Not exactly the spot where someone is going to chose to live.

Op, expect continued hostility. This is a place where non liberal dissent is downvoted until it disappears.

As Springfield's development will continue to stall, others will certainly look elsewhere FIRST and not to Springfield. This trend has been in place for 5-10 years already..

−13