Sabot L'ours (sabotlours) wrote,
Sabot L'ours
sabotlours

Ah. Democracy.

There have been a couple of major planning issues that have cropped up in my neighborhood recently. There is a big battle against a new Walmart which I have largely ignored basically because the protesters are a bunch of NIMBYites whose biggest complaint is that their nice view of the trees along the Rio Grande will be ruined. To put it in perspective, the land is a large tract, zoned commercial, at one of the busiest intersections in the area. It has never been developed. I just think that the protesters hate Walmart and all it stands for. Possibly. But the land is zoned for retail.

Another planning issue just cropped up, and this time I got involved. A parcel of land was zoned for commercial/office/retail and the developer wanted to change the zoning to high-density residential. That might not be too bad, but then they had to go and say that it will be for low-income families. They did this to qualify for some state help in getting bonding. The property would also be a stone's throw from my good buddy scritchwuff's house. I decided to throw my support behind Scritch who was vehemently opposed to the project as was most of his neighborhood association.

So we went to a public meeting last night, and the place was packed! It was great to see people getting involved in what is going on in their community. One of the biggest complaints was that the zoning change seemed to be getting ramrodded through the process in almost a secret fashion. Bad move. Then the developer kept trying to candy-coat the project saying that there would be minimal impact to existing roads and that the addition of another 600-700 residents would not put a strain on the already-overcrowded school. The whole concept of "low-income" seemed to be the biggest sticking point. What exactly did that mean?!? To them it meant people getting started in their careers, like policemen and firemen. What?!? Something just smelled fishy. Plus the rents they quoted didn't seem much out of line with rents in "regular" apartments in the area. Why this special designation of "low-income?" Once again, something just didn't add up. Perhaps the best argument against the project was that there is already a lack of jobs and stores on the west side of the Rio Grande (compared to the east side) so why would the city want to add more residents and take away the opportunity to help reduce cross-river traffic which is the major bottleneck in regional traffic? It will be interesting to see how both development issues get resolved over the next several months.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 6 comments