billconnors <noreply-comment@blogger.com> wrote:
billconnors has left a new comment on your post "Re: New comment on Gazette Corner: Mourning Proposal for Thursday night could rev growth for Evansville":
Mr. Schnepper is correct that the 27% population growth target was based on the population growth rate from January 1, 1990, to January 1, 2000. A majority of respondents to the community survey taken during the Smart Growth planning process said they want the population to grow at this same rate or slower (or not at all). The population grew at a slightly faster rate from January 1, 2000, through January 1, 2005. Mr. Schneper is correct that there has been no analysis to determine if a 27% growth rate is the "right" growth rate in terms of having the least adverse fiscal impact on the city and school district.
If the Plan Commission recommends any changes to the city's comprehensive plan, there will be public hearing at the Common Council before the Council takes action on the recommendation.
The developers of the Westfield Meadows Subidivision have informed me that in July they intend to start construction of the first sub-phase of that subdivision, including the extension of S. 6th St. to make it a through street, the extension of Badger Dr. from Evans Dr. to south 6th St., and the construction of a large detention pond north of Porter Rd. It appears that developers are not particularly concerned about the weak demand for new housing at the moment.
Further evidence of the developers' bullish view of the long-term housing market is that a developer wants to start a new subdivision on the Every property north of Porter Road.
Because the Every property is not scheduled for development in the city's plan until 10 to 15 years from now, the developer has enlisted the Town of Union to push the city to change its plan to allow the subdivision to be developed immediately in the township. Whether the subdivision is in the township or in the city is irrelevant to the school district. The Town of Union, which has publicly criticized the city for not controlling its residential growth because of the potential adverse impact of rapid growth on the school district, is aiding and abetting developers in circumventing the city's growth controls by pushing to allow the development to occur in the township.
Bill Connors
Evansville City Administrator
That sounds just a little like name-calling by the kettle. Not unjustified, perhaps, but certainly unseemly after ignoring Union's call to wait for the Town's Smart Growth Plan before annexing Westfield Meadows.
ReplyDeleteThis could turn into a long range peeing contest with the schools in the middle.
I think that we need more explanation from Bill Connors about his claim that "the developer has enlisted the Town of Union to push the city to change its plan to allow the subdivision to be developed immediately in the township." He then goes on to claim that the Town is hypocritical in its seeking to limit the pace of residential growth.
ReplyDeleteI attended each of the meetings of the Town of Union Smart Growth Committee. I am a member of the Town of Union Plan Commission. The Every property has been discussed by both groups because the owners and prospective developers have asked for this property to be designated as suitable for residential development on the Land Use Map. Neither group has agreed to this request.
Nothing I have observed would support Bill's contention. If Bill actually perceives this contradiction, then it is idle to simply write about it in a blog. He knows who the members of the Plan Commission are and could take up his concern with them.
Doug Zweizig