Mailbag: Mr. Connors Writes: On Union Development proposal; On Evansville Housing stock. .....and more.

Dick,

Please let me know if you see a first reading of an
ordinance that would amend the zoning of any of the
following residential subdivisions: Capstone Ridge,
Grand Orchard Estates, or Westfield Meadows. It would
be tragic if the city erased the good work it did in
zoning these subdivision in reaction to the temporary,
nation-wide slow down in the housing market.

The A, B, and C zoning regulates the minimum house
size, not the minimum lot size. There was no science
to the number of lots in each subdivision that were
zoned A, B, or C--the distribution of lots in each
subdivision was the result of negotiations between me
and the developers. The goal was to create areas
where builders could be assured that houses of at
least a particular size (and price) would be
constructed side by side, so there was not the risk
that a builder would construct a larger, more
expensive house on a lot only to have a small,
relatively inexpensive house constructed next door.
It was hoped this would lead to diversification of
housing stock and greater tax base to offset the cost
of population growth (e.g., need for more schools)

There certainly are enough small, relatively
inexpensive houses on the market in Evansville right
now, so in terms of offering access to housing in
Evansville, the city should not feel it needs to open
up more lots for construction of small, relatively
inexpensive houses by changing the zoning of lots in
these subdivisions.

The developers and builders will want a change,
because they are holding inventory (lots) and holding
inventory costs money. The builders and developers
here in Evansville have consistently believed that
they can sell small, relatively inexpensive houses
(and the lots on which they sit) more easily than
larger, more expensive houses.

Land development is a high-risk, high-reward business.
The developers of the Berg, Woodworth and Petterson
Subdivision made a killing because they lots in that
subdivision sold much faster than they had
anticipated. Now, because of the downturn in the
housing market, the developers are suffering because
their is a weaker market for lots, making it harder to
move inventory. That is the essence of a high-risk
business, and the city should feel no obligation to
bail them out.

I doubt the Town of Union is going to receive a fair,
unbiased, meaningful anaylis of the financial impact
of the proposed development by asking the developers
to give them one. The developer's analysis likely
will focus only on the short-term benenfit to the
local economy from construction activity, not on the
long-term costs and benefits.

If you want to post some or all of this on the
Observer site, feel free to do so.

Bill Connors