As the discussion of Lafayette Ballot Question 2C has evolved on this site and in conversations around town, I am losing the sense that a staunch pro or con stance even matters. Many sources tell me there's not likely to be a development proposal for the Countryside Village property that would request as many residential permits as 2C would allow. A city-wide cap of 200 building permits a year (plus 50 if they're affordable units) would be waived for this particular property if 2C passes.
Plus there are several other land use and expense factors that are weighing against the potential here. The infrastruture costs and a propoerty exchange involving County-owned land to the north of the parcel add to the complexity. In the latest Lafayette News, Councilor Kerry Bensman and resident Karen Norback have letters to the editor listing why 2C is a bad idea.
Councilor Chris Cameron and resident Wade Daniels have letters explaining their support.
I still like the idea of removing the cap on permits, and if it is almost a given that development wouldn't support close to 200 units, let alone more, then what difference does 2C make? I see 2C as unintentionally evolving into a philosophical debate over growth control in general. The outcome will either validate previous growth control votes from 2001 and 1995, or show a flexibility for specific parcels of land.
Given that proposals have to go through a public approval process and ultimately the Council, a site-specific removal of the unit cap removes the possiblity that permits could already be allocated elsewhere in the city in the same year a development comes forward for Countryside Village - and the development proposal, although worthwhile, is rejected because of the city-wide permit cap. To deny this possibility and/or deny the city the ability to avoid it is why 2C is now much more of a principled growth or anti-growth question.
I'm still leaning towards supporting the otherwise moot exemption 2C will offer. But there's still 4 days to go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well, Dan, you have fallen into the "trap" that has is of great concern - proponents viewing 2C as a referendum on residential growth management. Logically, there is no way to make that leap given the site and the wording of 2C.
Residential growth management will need to be extended by voters in 2007. That is the time it will be tested, not by 2C.
But you have identified a key point. 2C is moot. If moot, why have the city staff and proponents argued for it? Why won't they admit it is moot? Giving city government more and more power leads to unintended consequences.
Now what is happening regarding the site has moved way past the current plan folks are looking at which will be discarded, again. Yet proponents who have the same information as I do are still arguing for 2C. Some of that will be made public when it firms up over the next couple of months.
As I continue to hash through this, Councilor Bensman has identified an unintended consequence to 2C, that is, freeing the city from a restriction that voters have previously endorsed. His comment to me was:
"2C is as defunct as the initial three Urban Renewal proposals that initiated it. Why give city government more unnecessary authority?
I'm looking for a good reply from 2C supporters!
I'll agree with Councilor Bensman on this one -- 2C is not a referendum on growth management.
THIS proponent of 2C has not, and does not, see this question as a referendum on residential growth management in any way, shape, or form. It is simply (despite any attempts to make it complicated) a tool to enable the City Council to pursue the dream our city has for the abandoned Walmart/Albertson's area. We must deal with the blight, and have a goal of being as efficient and effective as possible in revitalizing this area.
At the time the ballot language was due, we did not know what kind of mix would be the most desired, the current plan had not yet been completed. And of course it will be modified as there is more public input and review by the Planning Commission and Council. This is standard public process.
The current plan allows for between 40 and 120 residential units. Is there some possibility that those units could be planned within the current restrictions? Eventually. Is it worth the risk that we will fail to have enough permits to move forward in a timely manner? Absolutely not.
The tragedy would be to continue to drive by a crumbling parking lot and shuttered big boxes for the next 5+ years while the city pieces together a solution. Or for people to NOT drive by at all.
2C is not so much "freeing the city from a restriction that the voters have previously endorsed" as it is giving the voters the opportunity to make a choice about how a specific, unique piece of property is developed in a way that was unanticipated the last time our growth management initiative was in front of us. I don't believe we were voting to roadblock urban renewal so much as reduce suburban sprawl when we (yes, WE) voted for growth management.
2C is hardly moot, it's potential for a brighter future for Downtown Lafayette.
Chris Cameron
Chris C says that 2C is about "giving the voters the opportunity to make a choice about how a specific, unique piece of property is developed"... and I am all for that... if I had some idea of the choice I was being asked to make. But it seems premature for citizens to make an informed decision on the matter, since the plans are still evolving. Would I vote yes to a specific plan to fight blight sooner rather than later? Sure! But am I willing to give a blank check to people who might not even be councilors yet (and this goes for 2B, as well). I'm not so sure.
From past experience voters are leary of 'blank checks'. In order to provide a level of comfort and potentially a win-win situation, I attempted to add a condition providing a reasonable cap on permits, which council voted down. In my mind this is more a philosophical issue, since the property cannot support (based on the most recent proposal) a large residential component. I am concerned ,however, by the county's intent. We met with them to review the plan. They seem to be flexible on trading some of the land they bought in this area for other land in the plan to help conform to our proposal. However, they indicate they do not want to build on all of their land and defer some development for the future. My interpretation of comments made was that this could be for high density low income housing. It seems popular these days to designate Lafayette as the place for low income housing by the county and regional planners. If this is the case, then it becomes more than a philosophical arguement.
Frank Phillips
Post a Comment