Couple of things
- Been busy with a variety of things, so it's been some light postings the past few days. Apologies to all.
- Aside from being fairly ridiculous, Bill Shipp's column also reeks of blatant prejudice seeing how he chides Democratic voters for letting a white woman and black man emerge as its top two presidential candidates. Apparently the white men from the 1950s would have been so much wiser and not let this happen and stuck another white men up for a presidential run.
- Related to the Corridor Management article, I'm a little torn. While I'm an advocate for the concept of 'Complete Streets' I also think things like bike lanes or sidewalks are not essential for inclusion for all of corridors. I want them where they are appropriate, but I don't want to see the discussion of this worthy study and resulting recommendations get bogged down by some of those details. That said, the proposal that is referenced for Jefferson Road sounds very, very good.
- Grady Thrasher's lying about NBAF? Shocking!
- Blake talks ethics and lobbyist gifts, and I've always wondered how hard is it, exactly, to, you know, not accept these gifts? Granted, I'm not one who thinks tickets to a Braves game or a nice dinner out is going to sway a bunch of votes - and, in actuality, that's how a lot of business is done - but since it seems to always draw such scrutiny, why not say 'no thanks, I've got my own covered.' Would save us all a lot of hand-wringing, right?
- In the same post, Blake talks about Red Petrovs's flirtation with running for District Six. Again, kudos to Petrovs for his work with OneAthens, but I have serious reservations about his candidacy for the Athens-Clarke County Commission. He's made some rather derisive comments about non-profit organizations, and that troubles me.
- Absolutely awesome. I've been to STATS, and it was pretty friggin' good. I had an open-faced Thanksgiving sandwich with turkey, gravy, mashed potatoes and cranberry sauce while I was attending The New Baptist Covenant Celebration, and it was high quality. Now this is even more reason to go back.
- Aside from being fairly ridiculous, Bill Shipp's column also reeks of blatant prejudice seeing how he chides Democratic voters for letting a white woman and black man emerge as its top two presidential candidates. Apparently the white men from the 1950s would have been so much wiser and not let this happen and stuck another white men up for a presidential run.
- Related to the Corridor Management article, I'm a little torn. While I'm an advocate for the concept of 'Complete Streets' I also think things like bike lanes or sidewalks are not essential for inclusion for all of corridors. I want them where they are appropriate, but I don't want to see the discussion of this worthy study and resulting recommendations get bogged down by some of those details. That said, the proposal that is referenced for Jefferson Road sounds very, very good.
- Grady Thrasher's lying about NBAF? Shocking!
- Blake talks ethics and lobbyist gifts, and I've always wondered how hard is it, exactly, to, you know, not accept these gifts? Granted, I'm not one who thinks tickets to a Braves game or a nice dinner out is going to sway a bunch of votes - and, in actuality, that's how a lot of business is done - but since it seems to always draw such scrutiny, why not say 'no thanks, I've got my own covered.' Would save us all a lot of hand-wringing, right?
- In the same post, Blake talks about Red Petrovs's flirtation with running for District Six. Again, kudos to Petrovs for his work with OneAthens, but I have serious reservations about his candidacy for the Athens-Clarke County Commission. He's made some rather derisive comments about non-profit organizations, and that troubles me.
- Absolutely awesome. I've been to STATS, and it was pretty friggin' good. I had an open-faced Thanksgiving sandwich with turkey, gravy, mashed potatoes and cranberry sauce while I was attending The New Baptist Covenant Celebration, and it was high quality. Now this is even more reason to go back.
posted by Jmac at 2:16 PM
30 Comments:
Complete streets make sense only if you allow higher density development. Unfortunately too many of the people who would like to utilize a sidewalk or bike lane are the same people who oppose higher density development.
They are the kind of people who, for example, would declare boarded up Denny's a landmark and use that "landmark" as a pretext to hinder or halt development.
I'm for complete streets AND the higher density that makes them worthwhile. Otherwise they are just an expensive subsidy to in town liberal NIMBYs who want the benefits of urban living without the costs.
Oh, for eff's sake. Opposing something that is an eyesore or being built only to line some Atlanta developer's pockets at the expense of a neighborhood is not the same thing as opposing higher-density development. How hard is this to understand?
Looks like I touched an (effing) nerve. ;-)
At the "expense of the neighborhood" is precisely the point. In most cases the good of the neighborhood on the one hand is balanced against the good of the community and the good of the property owner on the other hand, and in most cases (in places like Athens) the NIMBYs win at everyone else's expense.
That's democracy in action, for better AND worse. But lets call it what it is, and not pretend neighborhood activists are on the side of the angels. They are on their own side, everyone else be damned.
And what did you think of that boarded up Denny's? Remind you of any other made up landmarks? Say, "Pottery Town"?
I'm just tired of the assumption that people who don't want something big and crass and useless built in their neighborhood are always wrong. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they're not. Contending that something like the Gameday building is any good for the "community" at all is just bizarre.
well hillary, what's really so wrong with the gameday buildi g?
Granted, I think the business model is kind of ridiculous, but the building itself is a vast improvement over the eyesore mini stripmall that was there before. It includes offstreet parking in a fairly subtle way and has provided two new retail spaces on clayton street for long time local buissnesses to start new ventures. From my observance, those new businesses have increased foot traffic in that part of downtown, which has helped other existing businesses on that block.
How then, is the building not an improvement for the downtown community?
-wmo
Complete streets make sense, period, when they're feasible.
Further, neighborhoods oppose higher density for a lot of reasons that are completely valid. Not least of which is that, in their own self-interest, the people who own their homes don't want to see their homes obliterated by development that was somewhat unforeseeable and inappropriate. When my 'hood opposed a condo development years ago, we did it because we had a problem with that specific concept because it would have had a terrible impact upon the neighborhood and probably threatened it pretty significantly. We supported another higher density use, because that use was already in line, generally, with the land use plan and historic use, and it appeared likely to have far less impact on the 'hood. And it's been a good decision -- whereas I have no doubt that the other would not have been.
So anonymous, I suppose the costs of urban living are that you should not expect any personal property protection?
And second anonymous, I suppose developers propose their projects for the betterment of society?
And finally, I grow weary of people who do not understand historic preservation panning it. It is not about preserving quaint little sections of town so people can clap themselves on the back and remember a revisionist history. It is about preserving heritage, reconciling that with the present, and enhancing our future as a town.
Switching gears, I am not opposed to Gameday. Against it, it is taller than is generally allowed, and the original plan was a frickin' nightmare. For it, like the parking, like the mixed-use nature of it (though I would prefer that the retail were better designed and surrounded the entire building), like the fact that the deal included preserving the bus station.
The Gameday building set a precedent for excessively large, wasteful, ugly buildings being built downtown. If the condos didn't cost what they do. If they were oriented toward people who want to live in them year-round. If they didn't screw up the skyline of downtown (I honestly think scale is important, and one of the more precious things about downtown Athens is that it's been generally preserved). If the design had just been a little better thought out and less of a giant block of tan. If any or all of those things, it would be a better development. But I don't think it has anything to do with increasing foot traffic on that side of downtown. There are certainly people eating and drinking at Shokitini and Gameday Pub, but there are also people shopping at Agora, going to shows at the Caledonia, and having drinks at Mercury. There were plenty of people on that block already, in other words. I appreciate the commitment to mixed-use development, and I think they've done an okay job with it, but why is the giant, ugly, empty luxury condo building on top of it necessary?
Increasing density, by definition, means building up and not out. The more dense a community becomes the more urban amenities (restaurants and entertainment, publicly financed transportation, bike lanes etc...) we can enjoy, while preserving and enhancing green space that would be developed in absence of more density.
If you are against sprawl and you are against density, then by definition you are against growth. Which is also fine, but let's be clear.
As before I don't have a problem with neighborhood activists protecting their interests. That's what I expect them to do. But let's not pretend that theirs is the only interest, and lets not pretend that their interests are aligned with those of the larger community, because they certainly are not.
When it comes to housing, the bottom line is that more in-town condos will relive pressure on the escalation of single family home prices in the in-town neighborhoods. This helps far more people than it hurts (namely those who own said houses, and whose property values are enhanced by restricting density).
From my perspective I see NIMBYs and anti-growth zealots criticizing every development that is proposed, often over picayune details, on the slimmest of pretexts, and in an overstated and inflammatory fashion.
But let's not pretend that theirs is the only interest, and lets not pretend that their interests are aligned with those of the larger community, because they certainly are not.
I beg to differ. The larger community has a lot of needs, but many of them are shared by neighborhood activists. Single-family housing that is safe, affordable, and viable is in the interest of the larger community. Furthermore, often neighborhood activists provide opposition that ought to be de facto -- there's no excuse for allowing people to do whatever they want merely because they have enough money, staff, and time to mount a procedural or legal challenge to our existing laws and land-use patterns. Yet for whatever reason the job of opposing blatantly inappropriate development almost always falls to the people who would be most directly impacted.
The job of opposing "inappropriate" development falls most often to busybodies who have more time than money and a willingness to use it on the never-ending quest of get even-ism.
You want to have a say in what happens to a piece of property?
Buy it. Pay to maintain it. Pay the taxes on it.
Nah. Much easier to organize with like-minded bohemian collectivists and steal someone else's land, or his right utilize it to its most profitable end, via ordinance.
From each, to each...
Reggie
The Gameday building set a precedent for excessively large, wasteful, ugly buildings being built downtown.
I disagree with that, and partially because, to steal a cliche, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A building that one person finds unattractive another might find appealing.
I, for one, think the Gameday building is a rather good looking structure, and I concur with WMO that it's a big step up from the strip-mall that used to reside there. I think their business model is rather faulty (it just doesn't seem feasible to lease those things out for a handful of weekends per year), but that's their business model to determine. If it fails, they'll amend it or someone else will come in and fix it.
But it shouldn't be our place to get in the habit of telling folks what business they can and can't operate in a building (that meets the appropriate zoning and, you know, is legal).
But I don't think it has anything to do with increasing foot traffic on that side of downtown. There are certainly people eating and drinking at Shokitini and Gameday Pub, but there are also people shopping at Agora, going to shows at the Caledonia, and having drinks at Mercury.
The latter two examples, though, are relatively new establishments (past five years or so), and that falls into the framework of the Gameday construction. While one can't assume Gameday is responsible for that (I don't think it is), it's part of a larger scheme of economic development on that side of downtown.
Yet for whatever reason the job of opposing blatantly inappropriate development almost always falls to the people who would be most directly impacted.
Respectfully Nicki, this troubles me. While I don't disagree with the obviousness of your statement (those impacted directly always voice concerns over what impacts them), I don't agree with this notion that there's this uniform 'appropriate' development out there.
While I do agree with you that developments should meet existing zoning requirements and fit, to the best of their ability, into our land-use plans, my problem is when we start criticizing buildings that are 'ugly' or 'unsightly' or 'not pedestrian friendly' or what have you.
Granted, I personally think the new Harry Bisset's on Mitchell Bridge is hideous, but I also know they were within their right to fashion that building the way they saw fit.
Again, what's 'appropriate' to one person may not be to another. It's for this reason (among many others), we have everything ranging from zoning laws to private property rights.
Furthermore, often neighborhood activists provide opposition that ought to be de facto -- there's no excuse for allowing people to do whatever they want merely because they have enough money, staff, and time to mount a procedural or legal challenge to our existing laws and land-use patterns.
And this kinda rubs me wrong too. While I agree that we should want developers to adhere to the existing land-use guidelines, it seems wrong to label them 'bad guys' simply because they have money and wish to make a profit (and I'm a John-Edwards-fight-the-corporate-world kind of guy here saying this).
I'd much rather see us deploy a variety of incentives for developers to meet these guidelines (that TAD program we always talk about for instance) rather than merely get all up in arms because someone wants to build condos. I hate those $275,000 condos like most folks, but I think it would be better to work with these people to let them know what type of development is appreciated and viable here (ask any realtor how hard it is to sell those things, and they'd love a move like this).
1. The Caledonia has been there longer than five years. It predates Gameday.
2. You assume developers based in Atlanta who seem to be making money regardless care what happens in Athens.
When it comes to housing, the bottom line is that more in-town condos will relive pressure on the escalation of single family home prices in the in-town neighborhoods.
Theoretically. In reality, not so much when the per-square-foot price of the condos is what it is. Also, heck, if I lived in Five Points I probably wouldn't have any interest in living downtown. Just about as convenient. Far less vomit.
Finally, I am a little bit against growth. Or, at very least, I'm picky about that growth. It's hard to unbuild stuff, so maybe we should be careful about what we do build, you know?
2. You assume developers based in Atlanta who seem to be making money regardless care what happens in Athens.
Far enough, but the point remains that if they're coming in here and building things like condos along Mitchell Bridge Road and the majority of the community doesn't want condos along Mitchell Bridge Road, then you ought to work with the developer to help him/her maximize his profit by building something fits neatly into this community.
When it comes to housing, the bottom line is that more in-town condos will relive pressure on the escalation of single family home prices in the in-town neighborhoods.
Theoretically. In reality, not so much when the per-square-foot price of the condos is what it is. Also, heck, if I lived in Five Points I probably wouldn't have any interest in living downtown. Just about as convenient. Far less vomit.
I tend to agree with you on this, and I'm not entirely sold on the notion that in-town condos will have that big of a price impact on our housing costs. The problem, as I see it, is that we have a high demand for homes in places like Five Points or Cobbham or Boulevard and those neighborhoods, as well as the entire county, are pretty small.
I would note that condos being built outside of the downtown areas are having real impacts on property values in adjourning areas, which is both good and bad.
I would rather see more condos developed downtown rather than in areas near established neighborhoods largely because, well, that's my personal preference. Plus if we're going for higher density, it makes more sense to have said density closer to downtown.
I beg to differ. The larger community has a lot of needs, but many of them are shared by neighborhood activists. Single-family housing that is safe, affordable, and viable is in the interest of the larger community.
The larger communities interest in providing affordable housing, and even in providing dense but high end housing necessary to urbanization, is almost never supported by the NIMBYs who (would) live next door to the affordable housing units. That's why NIMBYs support minimum lot size standards, minimum building size standards, restrictions on floor area, restrictions on height, and all sorts of restrictions on design and construction, etc.... There is certainly a place for communities comprised almost exclusively of "single family housing" and that place is called suburbia.
Yet for whatever reason the job of opposing blatantly inappropriate development almost always falls to the people who would be most directly impacted.
Respectfully, the people who are "most directly impacted" by land use decisions are invariably the owners of the tract under consideration for development. Neighbors are the second most directly impacted.
More importantly, the direct impact to both the owner of the potential development site and to the neighbors is often outweighed by the indirect impact to the larger community. For example, the fetish for "single family housing" which infests even the most progressive communities has a tremendous negative impact on both the larger community, as well as the region, state, and nation. It's hard to calculate the indirect costs in each specific case, but it's undeniably true in aggregate. There is little question that NIMBYs impose large negative costs on the larger community by opposing land use plans and rulings which are better for the community, though not for their own backyard.
There is certainly a place for communities comprised almost exclusively of "single family housing" and that place is called suburbia.
So intown neighborhoods should be nothing but apartment buildings, condos, townhomes
For example, the fetish for "single family housing" which infests even the most progressive communities has a tremendous negative impact on both the larger community, as well as the region, state, and nation. It's hard to calculate the indirect costs in each specific case, but it's undeniably true in aggregate.
Although they are hard to calculate, could you please attempt to list them. Because I know that stable, well-maintained, publicly-spirited intown neigborhoods would contribute so much more to the overall well-being of the community if they were replaced with a bunch of rowhouses and high-rise apartment buildings.
While I do agree with you that developments should meet existing zoning requirements and fit, to the best of their ability, into our land-use plans, my problem is when we start criticizing buildings that are 'ugly' or 'unsightly' or 'not pedestrian friendly' or what have you.
This annoys me. I am not a NIMBY. Neither are the people who want land-use-plan-appropriate, current-zoning-appropriate development. Which is roughly 99% of neighborhood activists. I don't speak for chicken littles who dislike ALL development, nor will I defend them.
Furthermore, all of those things are somewhat valid concerns, depending on what the project is and whether or not those issues are challenging or even explicitly included in our local land use standards. But what I am specifically referring to are the legal standards that govern land use -- that ought to be the job of Athens-Clarke County, and because we have traditionally been lax about defending our own laws it instead tends to fall to the neighborhoods.
And anonymous, some of your comments are patently ridiculous. But I don't see much point in putting time into responding to someone who won't even identify him-/herself.
And Reggie, your concept would be perfectly fine if it wasn't based on the false belief that property exists in a vacuum. It doesn't -- it's given value and subject to a variety of laws and in some cases covenants.
P.S. Gameday is actually a pretty good example of what has been achieved with cooperation/neighborhood activity. Gameday's original plan really sucked -- it was where a contributing historic structure stood, and it had a lot of design issues that would have really impacted Washington Street badly. Luckily, Gameday was willing to play, and the resulting property is a pretty good compromise.
and the resulting property is a pretty good compromise
Granted, but it also set a precedent for allowing buildings of that size and price range to be built in the downtown area. I would still prefer that it did not exist.
Well...ok. I suppose I wish it didn't exist, as well -- I think there could have been much better projects in that same space. But what Gameday has done is legal, and the only precedent it really set was in its height and lot coverage -- and even that is mitigated a bit by the bus station deal and the fact that it is not in the downtown historic district and it is downslope from the peak. And kudos to Gameday for recognizing and responding to neighborhood/downtown concerns.
Against it, of course...it's not very good construction. But that's not really subject to our review.
This annoys me. I am not a NIMBY. Neither are the people who want land-use-plan-appropriate, current-zoning-appropriate development. Which is roughly 99% of neighborhood activists.
Do I understand you to say that the only development that is appropriate is that which is compatible with current land use and zoning designations? This is the usual NIMBY attitude, and an understandable one.
However, there are many situations where the current land use map and zoning designations have been rendered obsolete, and where their continued enforcement would harm both the larger community and the property owner seeking a change in the land use or zoning designation.
As to your making a point of my anonymity, it seems to be a red herring. This is Jmacs place and he allows anonymous comments. I don't think I've abused that privilege, I do think I've been respectful of those with whom I disagree, and I will continue to do so even if the behavior is not reciprocated.
Do I understand you to say that the only development that is appropriate is that which is compatible with current land use and zoning designations? This is the usual NIMBY attitude, and an understandable one.
While you concede it's an 'understandable' position to hold, I don't think it's a fair characterization of Nicki's argument. I mean, supporting projects which fit existing zoning laws and land-use patterns is far from a 'NIMBY' attitude to have, quite frankly. It's merely an appreciation for existing community guidelines.
Plus, NIMBY is being tossed around like it's terribly derogatory, when I don't think it is in all cases. If someone wanted to build a tire plant in my neighborhood, you could label me a NIMBY and I'd be damn proud of it.
As to your making a point of my anonymity, it seems to be a red herring. This is Jmacs place and he allows anonymous comments. I don't think I've abused that privilege, I do think I've been respectful of those with whom I disagree, and I will continue to do so even if the behavior is not reciprocated.
While I personally don't love anonymous comments, I do welcome them because I know that behind said anonymous poster is someone who holds valid concerns and issues. I wish they'd use a nickname or handle or something to make it easier in identifying them in discussions, but I'm not out to enforce the anonymity rules or anything.
And, though I disagree with some of your assertions, I don't think you've been disrespectful at all (despite my previous posting about your characterization of what constitutes a 'NIMBY').
Finally, I am a little bit against growth. Or, at very least, I'm picky about that growth. It's hard to unbuild stuff, so maybe we should be careful about what we do build, you know?
I agree with what I think you are saying about aesthetics. It takes many generations to "unbuild" stuff. (And sometimes what you would like to "unbuild" is declared a sacred historic landmark despite the fact that it has no unique historical significance and has been allowed to rot.) I'm a big fan of form based zoning. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but specifying which forms are allowed enables us to agree up front without using endless and arbitrary aesthetic considerations as a pretext to derail otherwise worthy projects.
I'm not sure we agree on density. First, we need to grow unless we plan on booting all of our children out of Athens AND wish to become a stagnant backwoods town. I also think it is also a moral imperative to provide affordable housing for everyone that is a part of our community. This means we can sprawl out, and chew up green space, or we can increase density by building up. A necessary part of densification is increasing the height and approving multi-family developments.
decon
Plus, NIMBY is being tossed around like it's terribly derogatory, when I don't think it is in all cases. If someone wanted to build a tire plant in my neighborhood, you could label me a NIMBY and I'd be damn proud of it.
I don't think you (or I) would support building something like a tire or cement plant in anyones backyard.
My conception of a NIMBY is one who generally supports a type of growth (say affordable multi-family housing) but will support it only on a site far away from their own neighborhood. This phenomena is precisely why TDR programs (including Athen's TDR program) don't work in practice. Everyone wants to preserve the green space in sending areas, and nobody wants THEIR neighborhood to be a high(er) density receiving area. That's my definition of a NIMBY.
I also intend to use the NIMBY moniker in a descriptive way, but I know it is taken as an insult. Perhaps I need to think of a better word.
decon
I'm not sure we agree on density. First, we need to grow unless we plan on booting all of our children out of Athens AND wish to become a stagnant backwoods town. I also think it is also a moral imperative to provide affordable housing for everyone that is a part of our community. This means we can sprawl out, and chew up green space, or we can increase density by building up. A necessary part of densification is increasing the height and approving multi-family developments.
Okay, so here's the thing. I absolutely think more affordable housing needs to be built. It should probably be tallish, to take advantage of space economies, and close to stuff, as the folks who need affordable housing often don't have cars. And plus I want to promote walking and biking and taking the bus. The growth I am opposed to is the growth we are getting, which is a bunch of luxury condos that bear no resemblance to affordable housing. I see those constructions as exploitation of available real estate for the profit of Atlanta developers. If someone wanted to put up an affordable housing tower on the edge of downtown (not smack in the middle of it, but, say, where 909 Broad is), I would support that construction, as long as it was done in a responsible manner.
Being opposed to more luxury condos or more, in general, for the people who can already afford tons of stuff, is not at all the same as being opposed to building anything.
The growth I am opposed to is the growth we are getting, which is a bunch of luxury condos that bear no resemblance to affordable housing. I see those constructions as exploitation of available real estate for the profit of Atlanta developers.
The impact of building more housing, of any configuration, is to lower (or to limit the rise) of housing costs generally. So the cause of affordable housing is helped, even by the development of "luxury condos". When communities restrict the supply of housing, price goes straight up, and more and more people are priced out of the market.
There are alternatives to directly provide affordable housing (section 8 style subsidies for example, or inclusionary zoning, or a regional approach where low income people live in trailers in Oglethorpe) but the most basic component of any serious affordable housing solution is to roll back government imposed restrictions on housing supply and density.
All of that aside, what's wrong with luxury condos? If there is a demand for luxury condos, shouldn't they be built? To argue that they shouldn't seems monastic to me.
I am personally appalled by our culture of spectacularly ostentatious consumerism, but I really don't feel it's the a proper role of government to regulate that.
decon
You folks are awfully cavalier in discussing what to do with land you don't own.
It strikes me as amazingly arrogant.
Reggie
The impact of building more housing, of any configuration, is to lower (or to limit the rise) of housing costs generally. So the cause of affordable housing is helped, even by the development of "luxury condos". When communities restrict the supply of housing, price goes straight up, and more and more people are priced out of the market.
All of that aside, what's wrong with luxury condos? If there is a demand for luxury condos, shouldn't they be built? To argue that they shouldn't seems monastic to me.
Ah... but how has the building of all these luxury condos changed the prices of housing in Athens? Has it gone down due to them? It's gone down a little bit, lately, due to the overall market nationwide, but prior to the recent downturn, the rapid increase of housing in Athens wasn't doing a damn thing to lower prices.
Also, if there's a tremendous desire for luxury condos, it should follow that these units are selling well, which they also don't appear to be doing.
By the logic of economics, either we should have excess housing and lower prices or a great demand for housing and higher prices. But Athens has excess housing and relatively high prices compared to the average income of its population.
Reggie, it strikes me as incredibly arrogant that you fail to recognize the role that the land use laws, government subsidies, and government services play in determining the rules under which property is developed or not developed. You don't generally have the right to build anthing you want anywhere it will fit -- and I'm not a bad person for asking the government to enforce the laws under which my investment was made, or under which the quality of the community is predicated, either.
However, there are many situations where the current land use map and zoning designations have been rendered obsolete, and where their continued enforcement would harm both the larger community and the property owner seeking a change in the land use or zoning designation.
Yes, but there aren't hundreds, which is what we see before the Planning Commission every year. Some might be ok projects -- a lot merely allow the owner of the land to make more money off of it (and without having paid taxes at the higher value) if they can obtain exceptions to the rules that everyone else is obeying. And every one of the questionable or just plain inappropriate plans we allow to go through increases the county's expenses in defending our laws.
The law is very important to me, and in fact in many cases I have chosen not to be involved in cases where my personal preferences ran counter to it. You mention a tire plant, JMac -- when I worked on a particular neighborhood site where a HORRIBLE project was proposed, the developers tried to scare us by pointing out all the horrible manufacturing uses that could potentially occur on that spot. But the site was occupied historically by a factory, and zoned for neighborhood commercial, factory or mixed use -- and the traffic system was designed to handle that kind of use. I objected to the inappropriate use proposed, but wouldn't have objected to any of the uses that have been defined for that spot and neighborhood for over 100 years -- especially since the inappropriate project would have created a precedent that might have resulted in destruction of the neighborhood itself for multi-family, block-busting apartment garbage.
Anonymity is an issue for me because you know who I am and you know where I come from, if you care to find out. But I don't know anything about you, and I don't even know which anonymous comments are coming from which anonymous posters. At least assign yourself a nickname.
decon...I also like form-based zoning. I'm ok with the current type, though -- they're both problematic if not properly deployed.
I'm also not opposed to density when it's applied in an appropriate manner. I like the projects in the dead zone between downtown and Milledge. I also can think of some other good receiving zones, and I'm one of the people who favors encouraging all of the arteries to grow up on their surface lots and transition from there to their neighborhoods. What I don't agree with is the "density's gotta go somewhere, so how about I knock down this historic house, subdivide this lot that was not intended to be subdivided, put this hugely offscale and inappropriate project right where a thriving neighborhood is, or in general destroy other people's homes and rework the rules so I can maximize my profit?" attitude. I've seen some really appalling projects, and people generally feel entitled to build them whether or not they have any justification for them. I'd like to see sending zones defined, and zoning and land use laws upheld.
Post a Comment
<< Home