Evansville Observer: Planning Comm: "The No Growth People?"

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Planning Comm: "The No Growth People?"

Mr. Roger Berg spoke at Planning Commission regarding the "no growth" people.

Download File

5 comments:

Bill Connors4:50 PM
Roger Berg's statements about "no growth people" on the Smart Growth Planning Committee are an outrageous misrepresentation. No one on that committee advocated for no growth. The Interim Future Land Use Map allows for the development of residential subdivisions containing many hundred lots over the next ten to fifteen years. And this attempt to identify which parcels would be allowed to develop in the next 10 to 15 years and which would be allowed to develop later was based on overwheliming community concern for the pace of residential development that was occurring at the time the plan was put together. The Smart Growth Planning Committee did not ignore the concerns of the Chamber of Commerce or others, as Roger asserted. We balanced the concerns of many competing interests. I have spent a lot of time defending Roger against what I perceive to be unfair attacks on him in this blog. I am bitterly disappointed with his misreprentations regarding the Evansville's Smart Growth planning process.

Bill Connors
Former Evansville City Administrator
ReplyDelete
Replies
grumps8:00 AM
Bill, I felt that Roger's comments were directed to members of the community whose first response to anything is, "No."

Roger was a part of the SG process and had plenty of time to make his concerns known then. Since then we have seen some who believe that Smart Growth must equal No Growth.

Granted, we have a large inventory of potential lots for sale but phasing agreements are in place to keep them from coming to market all at once. We have seen the rejection of two large subdivisions in the last 13 months because they did not make sense with that inventory already in the city.

My sense from Monday night is that Roger was frustrated with people other than those on the committee.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Bill Connors12:38 PM
Grumps might be right. Given that Roger participated fully in the Smart Growth Planning Committee, it is hard to believe he would say such things about the committee's work, so maybe I was mistaken when I intepreted his comments that way.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Mark Schnepper6:26 AM
How many "no growth" people are there out there? I am sure there are some, but I doubt that there are many.

I wonder if I would be lumped into that category? Personally I have never advocated for zero growth, but have stated that I am opposed to uncontrolled growth or letting the housing market decide how fast we grow. It currently isn't as big an issue as it was three or four years ago when the market was pretty hot.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Karen5:45 PM
These are tough tough decisions and I wish them well with it. It does trouble me the comment Bill H. made regarding the line being drawn based on who was there to speak the loudest (or some such idea).

It is my understanding that the Planning Commission is an all appointed board so as not to be overly influenced by those that speak the loudest. They are intended to be "protected" from concerns of being voted off of the commission for unpopular votes.

The people of the planning Commission should be looking at what is in the best interest of the City as a whole and not necessarily the interests of the few, or the loudest.

This is much easier said than done. There were plenty of times I walked over to a meeting feeling sick to my stomach. Pep-talking myself into not feeling intimidated by the loudest, the accusations, the glares.

Most of what goes through Planning goes on to Council where the politics of the action can be taken into account. It is my hope that the Planning Commission evaluate issues before it by what is in the best interest of Evansville as a whole. Leave the political pressure to the Council.

If there were no benefit to intimidation, and no detriment to missing a meeting, perhaps some consistency could be established, trust would be restored and we may find fewer occurrences of re-visiting decisions.

As it is now, once enough change-over has occurred, it's worth a second shot.
ReplyDelete
Replies