Sunday, February 7, 2010

Opponents to Development Get Their Turn

The concerns and reservations against redevelopment have often been found in the 8th or 9th paragraph of stories covering the grandeur of "things to come." Larry Carson writes a nice piece (although proponents of development may cringe at Larry's "crammed with amendments" line), which seems to lay it all out. Most interesting is that anti-redev folks promote Jen Terrasa as their hero, yet coverage of the voting session suggested that Councilwoman Terrasa was a little "out of it" when it came to keeping track of the amendments.

I don't know where I fall on this whole thing. On one hand, I agree with most that this is just the first of a thousand steps and that there will be points of resistance/reformation down the line. On the other hand, the infrastructure issues are of great concern to me. I think the council would take big steps with the public if they could explain, from their own confident understanding, how this is going to play out and what costs "we the people" are going to have to bear for these new developments. I don't blame GGP for trying to make money. That's what companies do. However, if things play out like opponents suggest, we have reason to blame the Council for hiding the ball.

So for Councilpeople, proponents of "First & Goal," and anyone who knows, what is the deal with the infrastructure component? Are we bearing the cost (with the explanation of it being "worth it in the long run")? Is GGP (and I just missed it)? Should I invest in Port-o-Johns?


  1. Your asking for honest projections -- not likely. We are currently investing 400 million in a sewer overhaul due to failing to accommodate current density. This project should be completed just prior to breaking ground on the redev but some are saying we'll already be overcapacity before a single Downtown residence is added -- not sure I agree with that, but I do see the council rubber stamp approving every single development proposed by the insider powerful dev community (not the owners of Waverly Shopping Center, apparently, but including the Mangiones, Rutters of the county).

    Beyond sewer (and the people in Savage have real complaints about it), there are roads and schools. Traditionally and empirically the dev community pays for studies that vastly underestsimate these requirements and after the population density occurs, everyone pretends to be utterly shocked.

    This is our tax money, people, our paycheck. To stop trying to elect the right people exacerbates the result of ignorance because it places the burden on voters to be hyper informed.

  2. So you're saying I should invest in Port-o-john? Ha ha.

    How do you know all this stuff, Anonymous? You see to be plugged in to all the right places. I appreciate your continued posts here, as I get a good amount of my info from you!

  3. I wish I didn't see what I see, then I wouldn't know what I know. (See?)

    I live by the paraphrase 'evil thrives when good people are silent', in a serious way.

  4. So FM, what do you have to say about that last paragraph, electing the wrong people places the burden of knowledge squarely on the shoulders of taxpayers ALL YEAR LONG.

    If we don't elect the right people, then we have to police them every day. Do you want to change every single voter rather than just elect the right people?

  5. The County Council was deliberative and collaborative, listened thoughtfully and made changes in the revitalization plan accordingly. They are not simpletons, nor are they corrupt. You don't have to agree with every decision to have confidence in people who evidence good judgement and concern for the general good.

  6. Thanks for the comment. I am not suggesting they are corrupt or simple. My issue is that I have not heard one response to the infrastructure concern. Not one. If this is the tax-payers burden for the brave new world of Columbia we've just bought into, that should be made known.