Shifting the argument
Couching your support for a special use rezoning of the Oconee Street property behind the argument that two other multi-use properties have failed so obviously we don't need anymore is setting up a straw-man if I've ever seen one. I mean, just because one subdivision doesn't completely fill up doesn't mean we should never build any other homes in Athens-Clarke County, does it?
As have been pointed out before, there are some site-specific reasons why the Gameday condos have struggled (parking, visibility, etc.), but others are starting to make progress (Ansonborough, for instance, is starting to show some signs of sustainable progress).
This is merely a weak attempt to shift an argument from the practical (the fact that the property is zoned for one particular use that is non-complient with the proposed use) to the emotional (assisting the agencies in need). Again I say ... no one is arguing not to help the organizations, but rather that this one particular proposed use doesn't mesh with the existing zoning.
As have been pointed out before, there are some site-specific reasons why the Gameday condos have struggled (parking, visibility, etc.), but others are starting to make progress (Ansonborough, for instance, is starting to show some signs of sustainable progress).
This is merely a weak attempt to shift an argument from the practical (the fact that the property is zoned for one particular use that is non-complient with the proposed use) to the emotional (assisting the agencies in need). Again I say ... no one is arguing not to help the organizations, but rather that this one particular proposed use doesn't mesh with the existing zoning.
posted by Jmac at 9:00 AM
8 Comments:
Where the heck is the second property referenced? I have no idea where it is and can't find it on the 'net.
Overlook is on Baxter next to the new Red and Black building.
JMac-
I think I saw you from a distance at that Egg Hunt, etc., out at Heritage Park on Saturday. I meant to make my way over and introduce myself. As you can imagine, however, chasing around an energetic 18-month-old fully occupied my time.
Anyhow, hello.
Darren
Hey hey! You should have come by. I was manning the ole musee's activity table, fending off swarms of sugar-fueled children.
I'll meet you yet Darren!
This is not a straw-man argument in the least; I don't know where you get that. The two other multi-use properties are actually very relevant. What the letter writers are trying to show is that there is not a proper market for these uses, therefore the zoning classification on the property in question is inappropriate. Zonings and rezonings are essentially legislative decisions, and commissioners have great discretion in making legislative decisions. Legislative discretion, however, is constrained when only one parcel is in question, so I don't know how much discretion the commissioners actually have here. They seem to have discretion within certain guidelines.
Also, this is not a "weak attempt to shift an argument from the practical ... to the emotional." The way I read the letter is that its core argument -- signaled by the phrase "sticking point" -- is about the mismatch between market needs and zoning classifications. This is exactly the sort of thing the commissioners should consider when making zoning decisions.
Both points of your criticism of the letter are off the mark.
(This posting required three attempts. The first timed out, and the second had a broken image. It would be nice if you turned off text verification.)
Ansonborough's not exactly a multi-story thing, though.
I'm not sure whether the argument is valid or not. What I do know is that I'm not crazy about another giant building going up in the area, although I would be happier to see the money from that kind of thing go to a worthy organization than to the usual developers.
I will say that Johnathan needs text verification, though, considering the amount of traffic he gets, which would lead to spam. Type faster!
Your criticism is off base Adrian.
My criticism is very specific - that comparing a proposed multi-use development to something like, say, the Gameday Condos isn't constructive or appropriate because there are specific things which affect the commercial viability of that development. I don't think that would be the case with something like a development along Oconee Street which has a strong and existing neighborhood to draw support from, in addition to the residential units it will add.
But Johnathan, don't you think that adding more residential units to this town is a waste? I'm not sure that Oconee Street has proved itself as a viable commercial corridor yet either. Just because Mama's Boy is a success doesn't mean the rest of it is.
On the other hand, I'd like for ACTION to be able to get out of debt by selling the property. It's very difficult.
Post a Comment
<< Home