PreserveLouisville.org
A Citizens Group dedicated to preserving Louisville's small-town character

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MUCKLE!

FROST!

SACKETT!

A Housing Growth Primer

 

Why the pro-growthers’ arguments for massive growth are terribly flawed

 

Our analysis of the candidates’ public records

 

How does massive housing growth harm our city’s finances?

 

How will our new library be affected by growth?

 

What is Growth Creep, and how does it harm our community?

 

Can you imagine adding 3,000+ more cars onto Louisville streets, as the pro-growthers’ plan will do?

 

News from the October 9 City Council Candidates Forum.

 

Is there anything to the pro-growth candidates’ claim of “1%” growth? Is it REALLY “1%” growth?

 

PLAN-Boulder County’s endorsements and newsletter, which includes PreserveLouisville.org’s endorsements

 

What are the issues in the November 2005 election?

What are the central problems with residential growth?

Why do the pro-growth Council candidates have such an appetite for more housing and more people?

 

Isn’t there some limit on how many houses will go up in Louisville?

 

Does adding a satellite community at StorageTek make sense?

What have citizens said about the Comp Plan?

 

What’s good and bad about the Comp Plan approved by the City Council?

What's a "Comp Plan"?

 

Housing Growth:

Where It’s At

 

A green space adjacent to a neighborhood park is threatened with a housing development

 

 

 

 

Information about

Bob, Frost and Ron

 

Bob’s campaign literature (updated)

 

Frost’s campaign literature (updated)

 

Ron’s campaign literature (updated)

About PreserveLouisville.org

 

About us

 

Contact us

 

How you can support controlled growth in Louisville

 

Does PreserveLouisville.org do anything else, say, promote open government?

 

We do our best, but...

Does Louisville need:

● 1,600+ new homes and

● thousands of new residents?

Our elected representatives are taking our community down the wrong path. On August 16, the City Council—led and supported by pro-growth advocates—voted to approve a fundamentally flawed Comprehensive Plan that adds more than 1,600 new homes, adds more than 4,000 new residents (and their cars) and increases our population to more than 23,000, a 21% increase over our current population. There is no end in sight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The election is a referendum on massive growth. Of the seven Council candidates running for election, only three—Bob Muckle, Frost Yarnell and Ron Sackett—believe that 1,600+ new homes and 4,000+ new residents are too much. It’s contrary to our small-town character.

And it’s a significant fiscal problem for the city. During the Comp Plan process, the Council heard repeatedly from its consultants and Mayor Sisk himself that each new house in Louisville results in a net financial loss to the city. Yet, none of the pro-growth candidates, who want at least 1,600 new homes, can explain how the city would pay for the deficits caused by these new homes. It’s not fiscally responsible to build houses without a plan for paying for them.

The “1%” housing growth myth. On September 20, the Council passed Resolution No. 38, which was advertised as a limit on how fast developers could build the 1,600+ houses and add the 4,000+ new residents the pro-growthers want. Recognizing they are on the wrong end of the massive-growth issue in this election, the pro-growth Council candidates are trying to soft-pedal their advocacy for the massive-growth plan by embracing Resolution No. 38 and saying they support only “1%” residential growth over the next 20 years.

 

Two problems here. First, “1% growth” is a fictional tale. Even if we hadn’t shown why that’s so, all you’d need to do is read the resolution to see that the phrase “1% growth limit” is nowhere to be found and unlimited-growth loopholes abound.

 

Second, to claim one is in favor of “1% growth”—even if it were true (it’s not)—is a not-so-subtle way to avoid the more basic question: To what end should we add 1,600+ new houses and 4,000+ new residents by “1%” for the next 20 years? The question is especially important when it’s a fact that each new house in Louisville results in a net financial loss to the city each year. Are we trying to lose our small-town character at the rate of 1% a year for the next 20 years?

 

At best, “1% growth” in new houses is another word for growth creep. At worst, it’s code for “trust me,” blank-check housing growth.

The pro-growth Council candidates don’t recognize the grave problems with growth. The Council candidates favoring massive growth can’t explain how adding thousands of new residents and a minimum of 1,600 new homes is consistent with our small-town character and quality of life. Their rationale for big growth is based on myths and avoiding a discussion of the problems of growth. How, for example, will the addition of thousands of new residents affect the new library, which was designed before the current pro-growthers led the way for massive housing and population growth? And, given the existing traffic congestion on some of our roads, how can pro-growthers justify adding thousands more cars onto our streets? Housing growth has obvious and enormous economic and social costs. The benefits from massive growth are not apparent.

It’s not a question of “no growth.” No one is suggesting Louisville is a "no growth" city. In fact, every objective the pro-growthers say they want to achieve—housing for "empty nesters" and seniors—can be done with the nearly 800 housing units that developers have a right to build now. Also, in the Highway 42 Revitalization Area (Hwy 42 between South Boulder Road and Pine Street), there is a plan to build a transit-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood with 350 housing units to complement the anticipated train station. These units already would increase our population to more than 20,000. When Louisville citizens were last asked about what the city's population should be, 92.6% said it should be about 20,000.

 

Who has made a commitment to keep Louisville a small city? Bob Muckle, Frost Yarnell and Ron Sackett have made a commitment to carry out the People’s will, and to minimize any increase in population over 20,000. That’s why PreserveLouisville.org has endorsed their candidacies.

 

What are the public records of the pro-growth Council candidates? Council member Michele Van Pelt said on July 5 that she was adamantly opposed to any limit on population in Louisville. As an unenforceable, non-binding, advisory “vision,” she proposed that Louisville grow by 6,000+ residents. And she said her “vision” could not be considered an upper limit on population in Louisville.

 

Candidate Mike Deborski (Ward 1) and Candidate Hank Dalton (Ward 3) are members of the Planning Commission that recommended the pro-growth Comprehensive Plan the City Council adopted, in large part unchanged. Notably, nothing in the Comp Plan imposes any outer limit on the number of houses or new residents who can be added; nor does it limit population to “1%” growth a year. Candidates Deborski and Dalton recommended a Comp Plan that added a minimum of 4,000 new residents and 1,600 new homes.

 

Each of these pro-growth candidates is defending his or her record by repeating the fallacies of growth, and each is running on the “1%” housing growth myth. At the October 9 candidates forum, these candidates reaffirmed their pro-growth positions.

This community needs new leadership. One seat in each ward is open this election. Of the five Council members who supported substantial housing and population growth, two are term-limited and are vacating their seats in Wards 1 and 3. One, Candidate Van Pelt, is running for reelection, in Ward 2.

This community must reclaim its destiny. We cannot open up our city to rampant growth and expect to maintain our small-town character and quality of life that led Money Magazine to name this city one of the five best places to live in the United States.

We've done our homework. The City Council candidates who will protect our small-town character and quality of life are Bob, Frost and Ron.

 

 

Green space east of Cottonwood Park

Which is riskier: Big Growth or Little Growth?

 

It is now plain there are two sets of candidates: the three who want more growth (Deborski, Van Pelt and Dalton) and the three who want less growth (Muckle, Frost and Sackett).

 

If you read on, you will find an abundance of risks and problems resulting from the dramatic growth the pro-growth candidates are proposing for Louisville. Not the least among them is the potential loss of our small-town character. As we point out, the losses we face from big growth are not temporary. They are permanent. When a city loses its small-town character, it cannot regain it. After a city adds 1,600 new homes and 4,000 new residents and then decides it was a mistake, those thousands of new homes and new residents cannot be “disowned.”

 

The ONLY risk from minimal or slow growth the pro-growthers have suggested is the possible inability to attract regional retail stores. As we have pointed out, it is a fallacy to contend that regional retail stores, which to survive need upwards of 400,000 potential customers from throughout a region, will decide to locate in Louisville because our city of 19,000 can tout a 1%, 5% or 10% growth rate.

 

But more to the point. If Louisville citizens, wanting to keep their community’s small-town character, decide FOR NOW to take a slow-growth approach and they later are proven wrong, that mistake is reversible, unlike the mistake of massive growth, which is not reversible.

Muckle, Yarnell and Sackett Go to City Council

Louisville voters on November 1 elected Bob Muckle, Frost Yarnell and Ron Sackett to the Ward 1, Ward 2 and Ward 3 City Council seats. The councilpersons-elect each ran on a platform of preserving Louisville’s small-town character by, among other things, minimizing housing growth in Louisville.

 

Daily Camera story: “A mandate on growth”

Louisville Times story: “Muckle, Yarnell, Sackett in”