banjomin t1_itqygzi wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:35 PM

Reply to comment by ShartsvilleDestroyer in Vote NO on Question #1 by [deleted]

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 on October 25, 2022 at 5:37 PM

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 on October 25, 2022 at 5:43 PM

You're not giving any argument for why we should develop the land.

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itqzymb wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:44 PM

No one is going to give you a reason that you'll like or take.

banjomin t1_itr0t7z wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:49 PM

Or... you don't have a real reason.

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_itr0znq wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:51 PM

Yep. That's it.

Cold417 t1_itqyut0 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:37 PM

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 on October 25, 2022 at 5:59 PM

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.