|
An Anatomy of Growth Creep
|
"Growth Creep" is the insidious acceptance of small doses of housing
developments, which then lead to more and more (and more)
deficit-causing housing,
population, traffic congestion and other ills of urban life. Unless
small-town citizens are vigilant, Growth Creep slowly but surely
destroys the community and their community's small-town character.
There are three recent examples of Growth Creep since August 2:
Example 1. In
1995, the owner of the land previously known as the "Clyncke
Farm"—which straddles McCaslin Blvd. just south of South Boulder
Road—asked to be annexed by Louisville because of water problems. After
extensive input from neighbors of the farm and other Louisville
citizens, the city agreed, on one condition: only two low-profile homes
could be built west of McCaslin, and only seven low-profile homes could
be built east of McCaslin. The annexation agreement specifically
includes this condition.
Since then, the developer lost the land, which now is held by a bank.
Another developer named Hansen owns an option to buy the land. He says
it wouldn't be profitable for him to exercise the option unless he can
build as many as 60 homes,
which he plans to sell for $400,000 each. To induce the
city to allow
that, he offered to dedicate as open space the land on the west side of
McCaslin.
Although Mayor Sisk has repeatedly cautioned his pro-growth colleagues
that the Council is in the business of serving its residents and not
bailing out developers who have made unprofitable deals, on August 2
the pro-growth Council fell for it. Casting aside the history of how
the land was annexed, the concerns of neighbors who had agreed to the
annexation under the nine-home limitation, and the annexation agreement
itself, the Council agreed to change the Comp Plan to allow up to 54 homes
on the east side, an 800% increase
in residential density. This
fact should be underscored: Prior to August 2, the developer had no right to build more than 7 homes on the
east side. In fact, the annexation agreement prohibited more than 7
homes. The Council gave up the city's—the community's—right under the
agreement to limit housing growth.
The
only Council member who is running for
reelection, Michele Van Pelt, approved this residential growth by
voting on August 16 to adopt the Comp Plan that allows the increased
density.
Example 2. In
2004, the Planning Commission and City Council were faced with a
request by a developer, Pedersen, who owned 2.6 acres of land west of
McCaslin and north of Century Drive. The land was zoned for commercial
development, as was all land
west of McCaslin. Pederson
said the market for office space was weak,
and he asked for a Special Review Use, essentially permission to use
land in a way that's inconsistent with the zoning, to build a
residential structure—a
3-story, 66-unit condo building.
Residents testified against allowing residential development in the
midst of commercially zoned land. There was testimony that, if the
development were allowed, it would open
the floodgates to even more residential development in the
commercial area. Citizens also opposed the development because of the
building's 3-story height,
traffic concerns, and impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. There was
substantial evidence the development did
not comply either with the rules governing Special Review Use or
the existing Comp Plan.
Four Council members dismissed the idea that this development would
open the floodgates to more residential development in the commercial
area and all other citizens concerns, and approved it on a 4-3
vote. The only
Council member who is running for reelection, Michele Van Pelt, cast
the deciding vote in favor of this residential growth.
On August 2, Council members, ignoring what they had said less than a
year earlier about "the
residential floodgates," said that the condo development approved in
2004 should not and could not be the only residential development west
of McCaslin.
The Council then approved a "mixed use" development that would include
at least 10-12 acres of additional
residential development in what, prior to June 2004, had been zoned
exclusively for non-residential development. The
only Council member who is running for
reelection, Michele Van Pelt, approved
this residential growth.
Example 3.
On August 16, the Council agreed to accept the Planning Commission's
recommended population "intent" of 23,000. Before they had reached that
agreement, however, the Council had already gone beyond this "intent."
This is because the Council approved the new housing developments in
Examples 1 and 2, which added hundreds more residents never
contemplated by the Planning Commission. See The
Bad News, Part I.
|
|
|
|