At its August 16 meeting, the City Council approved the Comp Plan citizens have roundly criticized.
The good news: The Comp Plan could have been much worse. The consultants had recommended adding 2,600 homes, increasing our population from 19,000 to more than 25,000, a 32% increase. At the July 5 Council meeting, the pro-growth Council members, led by Michelle Van Pelt, Sheri Marsella and Don Brown, said their "vision" for the city's population included a population of 25,000. These Council members repeatedly insisted that the Comp Plan must be "flexible" with regard to virtually every tract of undeveloped land, and that there could never be any kind of limit on population. On August 2, the Council agreed to a "vision" of 23,000. On August 16, the Council changed the "vision" to an "intent," while noting that the Comp Plan is only an advisory document meant to "guide" this and future Councils.
The bad news, Part I: Before the Council even voted on the Comp Plan on August 16, it had rendered meaningless its own stated "intent"--by exceeding the 23,000 "intent." Here's how. The Planning Commission in June sent the Comp Plan to the Council with a recommendation that the Comp Plan over 20 years allow up to an additional 1,600 housing units. That translated into a population figure of just under 23,000 residents.
On August 2, when the Council agreed to a population "vision" of 23,000, the Council approved (a) a potentially 800% increase (Policy LU-4.7) in density (from 7 housing units up to 54 units, or more than 100 new residents) on land east of McCaslin and South of South Boulder Road; and (b) created an entirely new, 34-acre "mixed use" development (Policy LU-4.6) near the new Walgreens off McCaslin Blvd.; this new development could result in a population of many hundreds of new residents.
Because of this, the Comp Plan, as amended August 2 and approved August 16, has already exceeded the 23,000 population "intent."
The bad news, Part II: Flexibility in a comp plan is another word for lack of vision and uncontrolled population growth. If every tract of land is "flexible," any developer can propose anything it wants. What developers badly want is to build what they know will sell: houses, and lots of them. Naturally, because developers are gone as soon as they've built and sold their houses, it is not in their economic interest to care about this fact of municipal life: Every Louisville house is a net money loser—every house receives more city services than its occupants make up for by buying goods in Louisville and paying retail sales taxes, the lifeblood of cities.
Although Council members, including Jay Keany and Michelle Van Pelt, appeared to recognize that too much flexibility can be harmful—by failing to give developers enough guidance, and residents enough predictability, on how much housing the city will permit—the Council did nothing to remove the "flexibility" it has added to the Comp Plan.
The bad news, Part III: As the Council members reminded citizens on August 16, even as they tried to strengthen the language about the population "intent," the Comp Plan is advisory only. It has no ability ultimately to control growth. For that, elections were made.
| What can we do? The best way to preserve Louisville is to elect Council members who: ● understand that Louisville citizens care deeply about their community and are opposed to rampant growth, the inevitable result of planned "flexibility"; ● are committed to preserving Louisville by restraining and limiting growth; ● recognize that increasing Louisville's population by thousands harms our city financially and risks irrevocable damage to our small-town character and quality of life; ● understand the fundamental flaws of the arguments advanced by current pro-growth council members. We've found candidates who have this vision. |
 |