Submitted by [deleted] t3_yd5yjb in springfieldMO
[deleted]
Comments
socialistpizzaparty t1_itqj5sk wrote
Again, this is a better argument than most are putting up, but we could really say this about all development on Springfields periphery.
Television_Wise t1_itt1592 wrote
>could really say this about all development on Springfields periphery.
And we should. Other cities have shown what problems urban sprawl causes and tried to move toward smarter planning. Why should Springfield repeat the past mistakes other cities already made and learned from?
the_honeyman t1_itqj60f wrote
Plenty of developers are picking up those abandoned properties. The Blue House Project in the area around the Fairbanks, Grant is being revitalized in anticipation of the new development along the avenue, im seeing fly-by-night renovations happening all over the place where old abandoned houses used to be.
There just isn't as much money in it.
[deleted] OP t1_itqi6bs wrote
[deleted]
Heil_Hipster t1_itr539h wrote
I mean I saw somebody openly smoking meth on the square last week so that may be part of why
JuicedCardinal t1_itqfvlo wrote
Hopefully the neighborhood knows what it’s doing. I see that preserving trees and views is one of the big reasons they are pushing for voting no. The proposed zoning provides for preservation or replacement of trees 6” or more in diameter, preserving the existing structures, and has design restrictions. Vote no? That all goes away. It is back to single family residential, potentially meaning demolition of existing buildings (like at Sunshine and National) and clear-cutting the entire lot to make room for a cookie cutter subdivision.
Low_Tourist t1_itqj767 wrote
They're replacing 6 inch trees with 2 inch ones.
the_honeyman t1_itqjfxv wrote
As opposed to a subdivision developer who replaces 20 large trees with two saplings?
banjomin t1_itqt7xu wrote
Dude, the amount of water you're carrying for a wealthy-ass development company is disgraceful.
the_honeyman t1_itqv0k6 wrote
As opposed to carrying water for wealthy-ass NIMBY landowners?
Pot meet kettle.
Cold417 t1_itqyi7y wrote
I love how you guys are painting Galloway as some enclave of rich people mansions. It's filled with regular houses and is a community that came together to tell the city no.
mrsdex1 t1_itvrgp2 wrote
Eh, find there Facebook community page and compare to the neighborhood community page that lead to Ahmed Audrey's death.
I absolutely can see some of them hunting down poors who dare enter there domain.
Cold417 t1_itvs1qy wrote
No thanks.
mrsdex1 t1_itvxwl7 wrote
Well, continue to wonder why they are being branded like they are.
Cold417 t1_itvy1zv wrote
Some of you need to take a walk through the streets of Galloway.
mrsdex1 t1_itw1t6f wrote
No, I've read the community page. Again, you are welcome to ignore the similarities between Galloway's page and the page that was used to hunt Ahmed Audrey, but I'm not.
Those people getting what they want, via gov't or neighborhood harassment. This is a tale as old as America.
the_honeyman t1_itr044r wrote
It's not populated with poor people, that's for sure.
Cold417 t1_itr0bui wrote
And?
the_honeyman t1_itr1oxi wrote
And the argument that the main problem with this proposal is the corporate nature of it rings hollow when corporate development is perfectly fine in the low income areas.
Cold417 t1_itr26in wrote
Did that low income neighborhood put up a fight?
the_honeyman t1_itr355x wrote
As much as it could have without having the money to do so. Didn't you see the Facebook groups?
Tongue in cheek aside, yes, there were people upset by the development downtown. Turning affordable housing into expensive apartment complexes. My point is, people only really care about that stuff when it's threatening their own back yard. Which is why wealthy neighborhoods stay wealthy, single family, and car-centric, and low income neighborhoods become expensive corporate housing hellholes.
Low_Tourist t1_itrvczt wrote
You know this is happening on C Street right now, right? The city is allowing new buildings with mixed use retail/apartments to be built in the historic district. Think those will be affordable? Highly doubt it.
When this passes - because it will, if not this go round, at another time - it just sets precedent and makes it easier for the rest of the neighborhoods' wishes to be ignored.
the_honeyman t1_itrwufv wrote
I'm glad it's happening on C Street. That wasn't really affordable housing up there anyway, unless you're talking about them ripping into the neighborhoods around C Street.
This town is so weird. "There's nothing to do/that part is run down, but God forbid anybody put money into developing the town."
flexpercep t1_itserqe wrote
This comment right here turned me from undecided to a yes vote! Congratulations you’re out here winning hearts and minds.
Cold417 t1_itsi2d0 wrote
Good for you? Now you can move on to bigger and better mental challenges.
robzilla71173 t1_itv7d6m wrote
We did, yes. Btw, this and the other thread have both inspired me to vote yes. So has the 'No' sign on the commercial property that's encroaching on my neighborhood. Seems it's owned by someone from down there in Galloway. (aka Karentown)
Cold417 t1_itv8ajn wrote
I don't know why you people keep telling me how you intend to vote. Maybe it makes you feel warm & fuzzy? :p
robzilla71173 t1_itv8uj5 wrote
I don't know why you keep downvoting our comments, does it make you feel warm and fuzzy?
We tell you because we're hoping you'll make less dickish comments if you realize that you're driving people away from your cause. It's a courtesy.
Cold417 t1_itvero7 wrote
It's not my cause. Have you seen me asking anyone to vote in a particular manner or sharing links to any content? Jog on.
robzilla71173 t1_itvjx5a wrote
If it's something you're unconcerned about, why are you hassling these people about it? It's a nice day, go play outside.
Cold417 t1_itvmwon wrote
You should concern yourself less with what I do and how people online award points.
robzilla71173 t1_itvrkr9 wrote
I don't think that's possible.
banjomin t1_itqvwyx wrote
I'm not carrying water for anyone, I don't want more corporate-owned, boutique apartment villages in this town, and I especially don't want them putting a nice park in their buildings' shade when it's nice trees right now.
I don't care that a wealthy development company wants to provide a bunch of rich kids with a scenic background for their apartment balconies at the expense of the park and the people in town who use it.
the_honeyman t1_itqz6ol wrote
Who do you think will develop the affordable housing we need so much? It's not going to be private individuals funding apartment complex builds, its going to be a corporation or two.
banjomin t1_itr03i3 wrote
DUDE, you already admitted that the affordable housing argument is bullshit:
>This one I agree with you on, more expensive apartments won't fix the affordable housing problem, but that isn't really the area to focus on affordable housing, imo.
https://www.reddit.com/r/springfieldMO/comments/yd5yjb/vote_no_on_question_1/itqjl2g/
Why do you go so hard on lying???
the_honeyman t1_itr23o7 wrote
I'm not talking about this development with that question. I'm asking who you think is going to develop affordable housing in Springfield, in general? Do you think affordable housing will be funded primarily by private individuals? Or do you think apartment complexes, hopefully with some form of rent control, will be developed by corporate interests?
banjomin t1_itr2wts wrote
It sounds like you don't have an argument for your position and now you're just doing a gish-gallop to keep from having to defend any of the bullshit you say. Hell, you admitted as much already:
>I don't even have skin in the game. I couldn't care less what happens down there. The hypocrisy is real, is all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/springfieldMO/comments/yd5yjb/vote_no_on_question_1/itr02e5/
yeah, the hypocrisy is definitely real.
the_honeyman t1_itr3d9v wrote
No, it sounds like the "no more corporate housing" is a convienent excuse for you to hide behind.
Who is going to develop affordable housing complexes? Continue dodging the question if you want.
Edit: blocked? Lol.
Low_Tourist t1_itql9fx wrote
2 inch trees are saplings. They're just slightly larger than a broom handle.
socialistpizzaparty t1_itqiqjh wrote
That’s a good point to vote yes. With all the attention, the developer has faced more scrutiny and I’m sure the project is better because of it (in terms of community impact being lessened).
At least it’s not going to be “Sequiota Towers” or something 😆
xPeachesV t1_itrlhhq wrote
"Single family residential"
That's the key statement. Nobody wants to say the quiet part out loud about the real reason people, both left and right, are against multi-dwelling units.
Dbol504 t1_itqi8sh wrote
I'll be a yes. The Galloway neighborhood never wants to any development down there and has been opposed to everything. They're the definition of NIMBY. It's the largest swath of undeveloped land in the city. So it's going to happen at some point. Plus it sets a bad precedent for future development if it's voted down.
Low_Tourist t1_itqjjly wrote
There's nothing undeveloped about Galloway. Before the developers bought this land - which wasn't even for sale - it had thriving businesses located there.
Dbol504 t1_itqpnp4 wrote
Apparently it was for sale if they bought it. Just as the Million Dollar Man Ted Dibiase said "everyone has a price"
Cloud_Disconnected t1_itqkki0 wrote
Oh heavens, we certainly don't want UNDEVELOPED LAND in our city when rich people could be making even more money for themselves with it!
The argument for a "bad precedent" seems to be we should bend over for every devoloper that wants to put in a strip mall or a boutique coffee shop or, in this case, luxury apartments and storage units that probably 5% of people in Springfield could hope to afford. Quick, give them a tax abatement and declare the area blighted so they can make even more money.
Don't worry, it'll pass. If not this time, the next time, or the next time. Stuff like this can fail 100 times, but only has to be successful once.
In ten years Galloway will look just like Republic Road does now.
Dbol504 t1_itqpucf wrote
If you want undeveloped land go live in the country. Living in the city you kind of sign up for everything to get developed.
Cloud_Disconnected t1_itqzd1f wrote
Maybe we don't need to pave every inch of ground inside the city limits.
the_honeyman t1_itr4279 wrote
Tight, compact development is actually better in the long run for the environment than infinite subdivisions.
Cloud_Disconnected t1_itr6ctf wrote
Fair point, but I'd rather a subdivision didn't go in there either.
It's going to get developed one way or the other, I just think it's a shame.
the_honeyman t1_itr7v41 wrote
Yea, the subdivision thing was more about continuing to push single family developments towards Rogersville, Ozark, and Nixa because people constantly make interior development such a headache. Even the Grant Avenue parkway caused a ruckus, so I'm not singling out Galloway on that particular issue.
Your second sentence is why something like this, with a developer that is adding back green space into their plan and making it mixed use, feels like something to encourage.
xPeachesV t1_itrn5d3 wrote
I'm somewhere in the middle on this. I love being near Downtown (5-7 min drive) and am glad something is being done with all that land on the Bypass in between Chestnut and Sunshine.
When I look to buy next, I'm sure I will move just a little bit further out into one of the surrounding town.
[deleted] OP t1_itqif99 wrote
[deleted]
name-isnt-important t1_itqe0ep wrote
I’m torn on this one. It will add to congestion in the area but it helps prevent sprawl by keeping housing close to the inner core.
Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itqxv9c wrote
Do you know where Galloway is? To me that is no where near the inner core. It actually promotes sprawl.
jrklein t1_itr0j8g wrote
I ride my bicycle from Galloway, through MSU and downtown, to C-Street many Sundays each year as part of a recreational group ride. It is not feasible for our group to ride from Ozark/Nixa/Republic/Ozark/Rogersville/etc to the downtown area or C-Street. Galloway is very close to city center in comparison.
Cold417 t1_itr19jp wrote
Don't bring those weak legs into this.
jrklein t1_itr40l5 wrote
🤣🤣🤣
Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itrm6js wrote
" It is not feasible for our group to ride from Ozark/Nixa/Republic/Ozark/Rogersville/etc to the downtown area or C-Street."
None of those are in Springfield. I'm officially confused what your point is... Galloway (and Springfield for that matter) has welcomed the bike riders. I haven't hit a single one yet. Galloway is closer than entire towns you are correct there. I wonder what you bike rides will look like with ~200 extra cars on that tiny street.
the_honeyman t1_itr3v0n wrote
The city has already sprawled around it. It's not near the core, but it also isn't out on the edge either.
name-isnt-important t1_itr0af9 wrote
Sprawl would be an area that is not yet developed. Galloway has been in existence longer than either of us has been alive. Do you consider infill apartments where a building once stood within the city limits “uncontrolled expansion of urban areas?” Or “spreading of urban land on undeveloped land near a city?”
name-isnt-important t1_itrbv8n wrote
Curious if you begin all civil discourse with “Do you know…?”
Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itrlhdm wrote
Nah, I'd prefer to start it with listen here, ignoramus. However, that would lead to a breakdown of what I'm attempting to do which is share knowledge and understanding to get to a common ground.
So in sharing knowledge and information, a kind way to do it is to assume the person is just unaware. Like, Hey, did you know your comment was unnecessary and doesn't add to the discussion of the OP's question?
deborah_jai t1_itq8k88 wrote
Why are the developers greedy for building housing and the galloway residents not greedy for using the power of the law to make their neighborhood stay the same forever?
socialistpizzaparty t1_itqcy15 wrote
I don’t like the idea of apartments right there BUT the whole argument against it comes across as disingenuous. It’s rich folks, down the road, not wanting their property values impacted. Don’t get me wrong, that’s fine if it’s your motivation, but just be up front about it.
If I vote no, it’ll be because of traffic right there at the intersection.
Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itqunii wrote
If you vote no, it should be because of the affected waterways and cave systems.
[deleted] OP t1_itqdkct wrote
[deleted]
the_honeyman t1_itqhr53 wrote
This is pretty much exactly the reason I'll be voting yes. Just be honest about being a NIMBY and I'd respect you more.
xPeachesV t1_itrngx6 wrote
The developer actually made a public statement earlier today and seemed to infer that there was a Facebook group around this issue that has been scrubbed because it reflected poorly on what people's real motivation was against No. 1.
I understand its hearsay but in this town and seeing how people act on social media, I don't think its too far of a stretch.
deborah_jai t1_itqd9n9 wrote
I and my fiancé will be voting yes much more proudly even than for the marijuana legalization (still pisses me off it won’t automatically expunge MJ convictions). People need housing and if more people want to live there then housing needs to be built, otherwise rents will keep skyrocketing.
antiquated_human t1_itqeg4z wrote
The secret to lower priced housing is less corporately owned housing, not more.
socialistpizzaparty t1_itqf6ji wrote
We need to rethink single family zoning in general. It’s wasteful and is one of the leading reasons we have no affordable housing. We need more ADUs as rentals for young people and also the elderly, as well as duplexes).
antiquated_human t1_itqhida wrote
in theory, yes. But in practice, having a small number of corporations owning a large percentage of the housing has done nothing but push rent higher, not lower.
Not to mention, single family home prices didn't start to skyrocket until corporations started buying those up as well.
Until there are measures taken to prevent monopolistic control of housing, things will get worse. Since this is a country that has put healthcare and food into the Profits over People category, I don't see housing fairing any better. But it is pure fantasy to think all the apartments being built will contribute affordable living. They are just the last step in the complete corporate takeover of the daily necessities of life.
socialistpizzaparty t1_itqi6qs wrote
I agree with all of that, but man it gets overwhelming thinking about everything needed to fix it. So let’s all do what we can and vote.
antiquated_human t1_itqiyv4 wrote
Definitely this. Everyone vote. I don't care if you vote the same as me, just vote. Be involved.
sgf-guy t1_itt403m wrote
I believe apartments are generally bad for human health mentally…
But this former 1950s era drive in overnight building structure in Joplin might be a better compromise for people like students, the retired, single people, etc.
You have your own place…your own grass…prob split out to be mowed…your own escape from people above/below/around you as in an apartment…enough room to have your stuff…own parking place…you can also easily sublet off utilities for construction…have a crew on sight for specific things at a time, use common materials…
Plus you have much lower costs to buy if that is the model. You could prob build those for $50k tops. It’s basically Eden Village here but with a more historical background.
Let’s just say it was $60k to build. Even in todays wild rate environment that’s a $450 a month payment. That’s pretty fair. You could fit 3-4 of these on the average city lot. This could a game changer from not just finding a good reason to get rid of way past their prime rentals but also putting healthy density back into urban centers and not encouraging sprawl.
Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itqwenu wrote
LOL-- More housing does not decrease the prices, especially if the housing being built is specifically luxury apartments at 1600 a month for single bedrooms.
I'll share a little story of this In 2003 my former hometown had 3 major hurricanes go through it. So many homes destroyed. The fixing crews were booked so far out it was easier for families to build a new home. Boom huge increase of housing in the area and eventually the original homes were also completed. Double the housing, right? Then they added 6 apartment complexes. All were nice the 1st year then became section 8 by year 3. Today you can get on a list to maybe be approved for a 1 bed for 2200. Increased housing units does not decrease cost.
Also in that time the river has died. Waterways poluted. A City utilities oversight meant that city water wasn't being tested for 2 years because they were overrun with all the additional accounts.
I'll share a little story of this In 2003 my former hometown had 3 major hurricanes go through it. So many homes were destroyed. The fixing crews were booked so far out it was easier for families to build a new home. Boom a huge increase in housing in the area, and eventually, the original homes were also completed. Double the housing, right? Then they added 6 apartment complexes. All were nice the 1st year, then became section 8 by year 3. Today you can get on a list to maybe be approved for a 1 bed for 2200. Increased housing units does not decrease cost. se cost. se cost. cost. .
The increased number of people in Galloway means we need to support fire and police services. Don't they get their operating expenses money from taxes? Which with this developer, there would be none for almost 11 years. 11 years. 11 years. for an already hurting services.
OrdinaryTrout t1_itvryr4 wrote
what are you talking about? commericial housing developments like this INCREASE rent.
[deleted] OP t1_itq9j7j wrote
[deleted]
the_honeyman t1_itqhkny wrote
Why would you not want a new mixed use development in your neighborhood? More amenities, walkable neighborhoods, all of these are good things. Corporate owned housing not so much, but capitalists gonna capitalist i guess.
[deleted] OP t1_itqhrpy wrote
[deleted]
banjomin t1_itqib00 wrote
Weird and dishonest that you’re talking as though the corporate owned housing is not the main thing for this ballot question.
Like you know why it sucks but wanna pretend like that’s not gonna be a big part of the development, even though the corporate-owned housing is, again, the whole reason we’re voting on it.
the_honeyman t1_itqitm8 wrote
I don't believe that one bit. The residents of Galloway don't want development there at all, regardless of who develops it, NIMBY is the primary reason people are pushing NO so hard, those residents couldn't care less about corporate ownership.
Who is going to make the commitment to mixed use developments like this other than corporate developers in this country?
banjomin t1_itqs9aj wrote
You’re not even arguing against anything I said. I told you it was dishonest to act like the apartment buildings aren’t the main thing in this proposed development plan.
Now you’re just ranting about nimbys.
ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqx8l8 wrote
>Now you’re just ranting about nimbys.
Isn't that the whole reason we're voting on this?
banjomin t1_itqxuob wrote
Nah I think it's about whether or not it's a good idea to develop the area around sequiota park into a boutique apartment village so that a wealthy development company can make money and rich kids can have a scenic background for their apartment balconies.
Although yeah, there are reductionist assholes out there who are carrying water for the wealthy development company and the rich kids by pretending like anyone who doesn't love putting Sequiota park in the shade of a bunch of apartment buildings are only doing so because they are "galloway home owner nimbys".
ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqype6 wrote
As opposed to a bunch of rich old folks getting a scenic background for their homes.
Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itro47v wrote
TIL I'm old. Also, if I were rich wouldn't I be able to afford to move?
Believe me I will have my 40 acres one day hopefully before I'm REALLY old...
banjomin t1_itqyw6a wrote
Rich old folks live in the park? I think that's illegal. TRY AGAIN.
ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqz1i0 wrote
Ok, well you clearly don't want to have a thought out conversation. Thanks for the chat.
the_honeyman t1_itqvqqv wrote
Because it doesn't matter what is proposed to do with that area, the same group of wealthy nimbys come out in full force against it. The bike trails, several other proposals for that area, everything. Trying to argue its about this particular plan feels disingenuous, when everything meets the same level of opposition and the same arguments are trotted out every time.
The developer is looking towards mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods, and has plans to replace more trees than somebody like a subdivision developer would.
banjomin t1_itqwmht wrote
So we're just supposed to want this development because if we don't, then we might be faced with an even worse deal in the future?
That's a terrible argument!
And you're still just ignoring the bullshit you said earlier, which is what I called you out on:
>Why would you not want a new mixed use development in your neighborhood? More amenities, walkable neighborhoods, all of these are good things. Corporate owned housing not so much, but capitalists gonna capitalist i guess.
WTF was up with that, huh? Why are you trying to pretend like this proposal isn't mainly about corporate-owned housing??
the_honeyman t1_itqxjlw wrote
>So we're just supposed to want this development because if we don't, then we might be faced with an even worse deal in the future? > >That's a terrible argument!
And yet, that's the exact logic people are using to say vote yes on Amendment 3. Hmm.
>And you're still just ignoring the bullshit you said earlier, which is what I called you out on: > >>Why would you not want a new mixed use development in your neighborhood? More amenities, walkable neighborhoods, all of these are good things. Corporate owned housing not so much, but capitalists gonna capitalist i guess. > >WTF was up with that, huh? Why are you trying to pretend like this proposal isn't mainly about corporate-owned housing??
Because mixed use, walkable development is objectively better than urban sprawl single family dwellings where everybody needs a car to do anything? Are we suddenly pretending to have a problem with the corporate owned part? I'd be extremely curious to know the percentage of people who live in that neighborhood who made their money via working the corporate rat race, and who don't see problems with ordering shit from Amazon at the drop of a hat.
banjomin t1_itqybo2 wrote
>And yet, that's the exact logic people are using to say vote yes on Amendment 3. Hmm.
Don't try to change the topic just because your argument is bad.
>Are we suddenly pretending to have a problem with the corporate owned part? I'd be extremely curious to know the percentage of people who live in that neighborhood who made their money via working the corporate rat race, and who don't see problems with ordering shit from Amazon at the drop of a hat.
I'm just gonna go back and copy paste a previous comment I made towards you:
>Dude, the amount of water you're carrying for a wealthy-ass development company is disgraceful.
the_honeyman t1_itr02e5 wrote
I don't even have skin in the game. I couldn't care less what happens down there. The hypocrisy is real, is all.
If that's a bad argument, so is the "yes on 3."
banjomin t1_itr079y wrote
>I don't even have skin in the game. I couldn't care less what happens down there.
Yeah of course, you're just here to spew a bunch of bullshit without knowing what you're talking about.
>The hypocrisy is real, is all.
This is just more bullshit.
>If that's a bad argument, so is the "yes on 3."
I'm just gonna copy paste this one from my previous comment:
>Don't try to change the topic just because your argument is bad.
ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqkal3 wrote
A person can be greedy about anything not just money. But this will effect property values and therefore property tax and insurance. So the Galloway residents also have money in the game.
banjomin t1_itqhplq wrote
Developers: want to make money
You: how is that greedy???
Home owners: we don’t want the park ruined by a bunch of apartment buildings
You: this is greed.
ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqkwju wrote
How is the park ruined by an apartment building? Are they building the apartments in the park? The park will be busier. Is that what you mean by ruined? Cause that's not ruined.
banjomin t1_itqrndb wrote
Nah not what I meant. I like the trees around the park more than I would like a bunch of apartment buildings.
the_honeyman t1_itqijnk wrote
How would the park be ruined by building apartments down across the street?
Low_Tourist t1_itqiwcl wrote
It's not down the street. It's directly across the street from the park.
the_honeyman t1_itqj9yj wrote
Ok. How would the park be ruined by building apartments across the street from the park?
banjomin t1_itqse1p wrote
Because right now there are a bunch of trees around there and that is nicer for the people at the park than a bunch of apartment buildings.
I personally would like to still have some sunshine there after 3pm instead of just being in the shade of an apartment building.
Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itqxcuu wrote
It will be ruined because the apartments will use the park as their retention pond.
the_honeyman t1_itqy8m0 wrote
The developer has no plans for dealing with runoff? That's a legitimate argument, though it seems like a failure on the planning and zoning commission to make them address it if true.
Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itrotyj wrote
The do have a plan... To use the creek in the park as a natural filter... :*(
the_honeyman t1_itrpdgg wrote
Well there you go. This is what the "vote no" crowd should be pushing.
Comprehensive_Ad6049 t1_itrwyjj wrote
I agree with you there.
noblechimp84 t1_itsz13d wrote
Look at the location of "vote yes" signs and the location of "vote no" sign. Yes's are more common on commerical property. While No signs will mostly be seen on residential properties.
Vote with the people this decision will affect most, current residents. Real-estate investors are not living with this decision, just profiting off those that will.
There are other areas that would be great for development, more suitable to the increased population and welcomed.
WendyArmbuster t1_itubtcl wrote
Exactly. This should say everything people need to know about this issue. Residents have No signs, commercial property has Yes signs. All of this commercial property was the same places I saw those dingbat school board candidates signs too.
banjomin t1_itqtjag wrote
Find me an argument for why this land should be developed into apt buildings that wouldn't also work to argue developing the land in the ACTUAL PARK and maybe voting yes will start making sense to me.
ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqxuzt wrote
Because the park isn't undeveloped land. It's a public park.
banjomin t1_itqygzi wrote
That's not an argument for why we should develop the land around the park into a boutique apartment village. Try again.
ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqyx5h wrote
You asked for a reason to develop the proposed land that wouldn't also work for developing the park. One is undeveloped land. The other is a park. We can develop undeveloped land, we can't develop a park.
banjomin t1_itqzszo wrote
You're not giving any argument for why we should develop the land.
ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqzymb wrote
No one is going to give you a reason that you'll like or take.
banjomin t1_itr0t7z wrote
Or... you don't have a real reason.
ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itr0znq wrote
Yep. That's it.
Cold417 t1_itqyut0 wrote
If we develop the land next to the park, then the developer gets to offload their greenspace to the public and sell it as a feature!
ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itr2c5x wrote
I thought I read that the developer upped the amount of greenspace to include and is well above what even the city required. Maybe I misread it though.
[deleted] OP t1_itqtxwc wrote
[deleted]
banjomin t1_itr2ihy wrote
I'm asking for a reason to vote yes that wouldn't also work to argue for developing the park. I'm asking the question because I think we should all be able to agree that we don't want to convert our public parks into apartment buildings, but the arguments I'm seeing to vote yes are arguments that you could also use to argue that we should convert public parks into apartment buildings.
Like, if the argument is affordable housing, and we need these apartments to increase the amount of affordable housing (directly or indirectly), then hell, why not develop the park into affordable housing or apartment buildings as well?
If building the apartments is going to impact homelessness so much that we are overlooking the issues with the development, then why not just develop the park as well?? If we need the housing that badly then it would really help to develop the park and the surrounding area into these apartment buildings. "Or do you not care about the problem of homelessness and care so much more about having a nice stroll??"
If the argument is about NIMBYs, then I can basically say the same thing. "Why are we so committed to preserving the scenic views of rich old people living around this park??"
turbulance4 t1_itrd26d wrote
Could you link some information or something? I don't even know what the question is
[deleted] OP t1_itrdna0 wrote
[deleted]
mhackeson t1_its9j33 wrote
The Galloway Village Neighborhood Association has a website and list 10 reasons to vote "No" on Question 1. https://www.gallowayvillage.org/no-rezoning
Even if you plan to vote yes, you should know these reasons.
cktk9 t1_itseh5a wrote
I will never reference a website like that for any kind of truth. It's like one of those cars covered in conspiracy bumper stickers.
I've never seen an issue like this where I dislike the idea of voting for either side so much. This neighborhood association is like someone on trial that fires their lawyer and defends themselves. They should have just hired a PR person and they'd be much better off.
mhackeson t1_itsjolf wrote
There are multiple places in this thread where commenters have said that they should be publicizing one aspect of the fight or another. All of those aspects are listed on this site.
blurubi04 t1_itqmu5x wrote
Galloway is going to University Heights themselves on this one, you watch. The developer has compromised. If No wins, he sells and the next guy clear cuts the trees and bulldozes every thing. Drive down west bypass before you vote No.
banjomin t1_itqu48v wrote
Lol at the idea that galloway will look like west bypass if we don't give this developer what they want.
Sounds like an argument for some type of slimy salesman: "If you don't take my deal then it's going to be bad for you"
blurubi04 t1_itr5ouu wrote
Exactly what University Heights said 6 years ago.
Look, I hope you are right. But the truth is I could retire if I bet everyone in UH $20 that National &Sunshine would disappear in 4 hours. It’s a don’t say you weren’t warned situation.
[deleted] OP t1_itqn31h wrote
[deleted]
blurubi04 t1_itr4jo8 wrote
I hope so, I truly, earnestly do. My mom’s in University Heights on university in fact. 6 years ago they NIMBYed a place for Mercy patients families to stay and now they have a vacant lot that’s about to be 3 vacant lots… that’s what hard core asshole developers do. If they doze the property, there’s nothing left to fight about. We love Sequoita park and Galloway. I don’t know anything about this developer other than what has been in the local media, but they have adjusted multiple times and are done if this fails.
[deleted] OP t1_itw2fv2 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] OP t1_itw2se3 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] OP t1_itqem51 wrote
[deleted]
banjomin t1_itqh50e wrote
Kind of dishonest to frame it like this would help those without housing. Homeless people are not going to be living in any boutique apartments across from sequiota park.
I get the logic of freeing up cheaper units, but that’s just supply-side economics that can also justify other awful things.
the_honeyman t1_itqjl2g wrote
This one I agree with you on, more expensive apartments won't fix the affordable housing problem, but that isn't really the area to focus on affordable housing, imo.
banjomin t1_itqrthj wrote
Affordable housing is the main argument I’m seeing for why I should vote yes and for why I’m such an asshole for not wanting to vote yes.
the_honeyman t1_itqw3an wrote
I don't think the "no" votes are assholes, I just wish they'd be honest, instead of pretending they have an issue with corporate owned anything.
banjomin t1_itqwcib wrote
Why would you just assume that about anyone?
the_honeyman t1_itqyvm0 wrote
As I said in another comment, these exact same arguments were trotted out in relation to the bike trails and other proposals. Yall don't want your property values to be impacted by an apartment complex. Fair argument. Being upset specifically by the "corporate" part of the development smacks of "it was fine until it impacted me."
You all are just as opposed to the corporate housing development occurring around Missouri State, then? Where was the campaign to stop Grad School being demolished in favor of corporate apartments?
Cold417 t1_itqz3ez wrote
That neighborhood would have been responsible for fighting that development. Considering the population is mostly transient...Yeah.
the_honeyman t1_itqzlse wrote
So it's fine for affordable housing to be demolished in favor of expensive downtown apartments for students, because the neighborhood didn't have enough money to fight it, but it's not ok for mixed use development to occur in a place that wouldn't be expanding urban sprawl because the rich people who live there don't want it close to them?
Cold417 t1_itr0gy9 wrote
You're the only one making that argument, bro.
Delicious-Mouse-4681 t1_itri2wv wrote
They have no idea about anything aside from a handout.
Delicious-Mouse-4681 t1_itrhzfu wrote
Vote how you choose to…. Don’t let someone shove their agenda down your throat.
petlove499 t1_its9vxu wrote
Does anyone have any sources on actual environmental impact studies or surveys that have been completed? Environmental impact is the only reason I’d vote no.
sgf-guy t1_itt6y82 wrote
As a history person I welcome the idea that sometimes things need to be preserved even if it results in lower financial opportunities nowadays for redeveloping or random people who seemingly end up on a now more valuable property by pure chance. I would argue that in my middle aged life most people who bought into recently decided historical areas are not doing it for profit because it is a kinda generally accepted but not officially declared historical area. A lot of historical housing is much more costly than modern housing due to things like heating/cooling efficiency.
We can’t save it all. We can barely truly save 1%. But there comes a point where the physical cost to maintain and the value to the community interact. I live next to a 1950s era strip mall. I am surprised someone hasn’t came in and realized the land/traffic value isn’t comparable to bulldozing it down and building the new thing. Maintenance is a PITA due to age and it’s really…not special.
But time has a way of telling you deep down what was special. What might mean more for the long term and should be developed as a historical area, a point where people seek out, a place the community could point towards and be proud of because we have this unique pocket neighborhood with historical value. Galloway was it’s own thing on the map long before SGF ever expanded.
You can later decide it’s not worth it, but you can never bring back the past. This isn’t just NIMBY but people realizing apartments could be built anywhere. I bet apartments would gross more where the ATT store is at BF and LP.
[deleted] OP t1_itw28ok wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] OP t1_itw2a20 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] OP t1_itqdxt0 wrote
[deleted]
mrsdex1 t1_itvr3j6 wrote
These types of issues have been used in Missouri for at least a hundred years to keep poor entrapped in poverty.
The entire St. Louis City/St Louis County problems are rooted in the division lines enacted for the World's Fair in the early 1900's.
Dixiecrats gonna do what they do.
[deleted] OP t1_itvuhhe wrote
[removed]
DiabetikCrysis t1_itsn9kn wrote
It's hilarious to me that people are against this development. I lived behind the park about 12-13 years ago and.... nothing that's there now on Lone Pine even existed then. So the people living in that area now are against development? They "like it just the way it is". Ok. It looks absolutely nothing like it did less than 15 years ago. Has anyone pulled this up on Google maps and looked at the area they're looking to develop? It's tiny. There's what appears to be an old, abandoned building and the tiny shop next to it that's been everything under the sun but no lasting business. "OUR TREEEEES!" Walk across the road to the damn park. Plenty of trees. Galloway is not even close to what it used to be, quit fighting it. You're in part of a city that people want to move to because it got DEVELOPED.
chanjcoop t1_itrw2va wrote
Looking forward to voting yes on this issue. If this doesn’t go through it will mark a very grave future for Springfield.
[deleted] OP t1_itrwoae wrote
[deleted]
SkyhawkNovemberPapa t1_itqi09p wrote
With how many abandoned buildings, houses, and empty lots are available on the west side or on the north side of Springfield I don’t understand why developers are pushing outwards instead of investing in the actual city. Plenty of space for this type of development and would preserve the nature in that area. I’m voting no.