My Response to Developers - by Cathy Burton

.....
click here to return to July index

The opinions expressed in these articles and features are those of their author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of McANA or the opinion of its Directors or Officers.

My Response to Developers
by Cathy Burton
[President of McANA]

More and more often, in working with land use and zoning issues as a community volunteer, I hear the phrase "cookie cutter houses." What I also hear more and more often is the "cookie cutter" approach to why we should accept the explosion of new residential subdivisions that are beginning to put a true and long lasting strain on our community’s resources.

Does any of this sound familiar to you?

1) "But It Goes with the Comprehensive Plan."
MY RESPONSE: Neighborhoods clearly believe the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan must weigh heavily in the decision to approve or deny any type of development. However, when it comes to the recommendations for residential development, there are RANGES of density which are suggested for any given piece of property. When balancing the impacts of new development, the authors of the Comprehensive Plan expected that some development would occur at the low end of the density recommendation as well as the midway point or the high end in order to bring balance and diversity to the residential market. So when was the last time you saw a developer come forward with a proposal that was at the low end of the density recommendation? Additionally, I believe that in order to provide for orderly growth and the correspondingly orderly growth of the necessary infrastructure and community services, new development needs to happen at a measured pace which allows that pesky infrastructure to keep up. I certainly do not see that happening in my township. And if compliance with the Comprehensive plan is all that should be considered, then why do we have a public zoning process to begin with?

2) "Our project is unique."
MY RESPONSE: That must be why, when I took pictures in a dozen new subdivisions in my township and mixed them together, no one could tell which ones were which, including some of the developers themselves.

3) "We need to have small lots to make this project work, but we have allowed a lot of open space for recreation."
MY RESPONSE: How much of that "open space" is retention/detention facilities, road rights-of-way, and floodways that have to be there anyway. And what happened to the advantages of having a yard big enough for your kids’ swing sets so you can watch them from the kitchen window while you’re fixing supper? Doesn’t that work for anyone
anymore?

4) "We need to use the cluster/DP option to preserve natural amenities."
MY RESPONSE: Does this explain why trees are routinely clear cut, why wetlands are filled and moved, and why streams are relocated or realigned?

5) "No one will buy brick homes any more."
MY RESPONSE: Well, they can’t buy them if they aren’t built. Besides, if we are talking about truly sustainable neighborhoods, doesn’t it make sense to have at least some neighborhoods with homes that can withstand the trials of weather and time so they will still look decent in 20 years? No, not everyone can afford brick, and we need variety in building exteriors as well - but is there anyone out there willing to think "outside the box" (the vinyl box that is.)

6) "The roads around this project still have additional capacity and can handle the new traffic."
MY RESPONSE: This must explain why there are intersections in my township where the cars back up for a mile at a time and why people rearrange their work schedules so they can get out of their driveways during lulls in the traffic.

7) "The only way to fix the drainage problems in this neighborhood is to allow us to develop this property."
MY RESPONSE: Then why am I constantly fielding complaints from neighbors of new subdivisions who are now experiencing drainage problems they never had before? Maybe if the developer’s would quit cutting the mature trees down they could continue to absorb the ground water. And who oversees whether the drainage is being installed correctly? The City certainly doesn’t have the money to put a drainage inspector on every site every day.

8) "The schools will grow to accommodate the new students."
MY RESPONSE: Oh, this must be why we have 25 and 30 kids in a classroom in our elementary schools. And even if the schools had buckets of money, they could not build buildings fast enough to keep up with the influx of students, and raising the property taxes to have enough money for buildings does not mean the schools have the money to pay the teachers to staff those buildings, because those salary funds come from another source.

9) "This development will help build the tax base."
MY RESPONSE: Good - when will my taxes be going down?

10) "But the homes in this subdivision are worth more than the old ones in this neighborhood."
MY RESPONSE: Isn’t it sad that we assume the measure of value for someone’s home is based solely on how much money they could get if they sold it?

I believe that EVERYONE should have the chance to live in a safe neighborhood in a house they can afford, and that people should have choices about where they live when it is time for them to choose a home. But, if we are to believe that we are not in a "cookie cutter" development mode in this county, then let’s hear something besides "cookie cutter" rhetoric.

Cathy Burton