A letter to the editor from Aaron Harber:
In terms of sales tax revenue, Lafayette is financially blessed with a King Soopers, an Albertsons, and a Wal-Mart, among many other stores. A Super Wal-Mart is about to open and a Super Target has been approved as well. The City is in excellent financial shape and its prospects are good.
Read the rest here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Apparently we can count Aaron Harber among the people who believe that some development should occur on Waneka's land, just not a big box. Just not a big box based on perceived major traffic impacts.
I am sorry to say that if you don't like traffic impacts of any magnitude, you don't want any development. The notion that a big box should be excluded because of traffic is appealing at first glance, but the fact is that many other land uses would have the same impact, and many would have a greater impact.
It's not hard to find the ITE trip generation table if you look for it on-line. Each single family unit generates 9.55 average daily trips. Shopping centers, discounters, and specialty retail all generate approximately 40 ADT per 1,000 feet of lease floor area. For comparison, a gas station with convenience store generates 845 ADT per 1,000 SF.
But who's doing the math? If you do, you find that the devil is in the details, and specifically that big boxes aren't extraordinarily out of line as trip generators.
It's honest, at least, to say you don't want development at all. But it is not rational - and I think a bit dishonest for someone who speaks from a position where people expect them to be well-informed - to hold up big box traffic as the one and only reason you don't like the annexation question.
Hear Hear. I've gotten my friends who are anti-A to just admit they don't want development in the abstract and "wish we didn't have to rely on stores for sales tax". Then I tell them never to run for City Council.
Blah Blah Blah - You guys are like a broken record. It is OK if people don't want development! It just doesn't fit your ideals. That is part of living in a community that gives people the choice. Just because a majority of council and Planning think it's a good idea, doesn't make it one. You are only trying to fund programs and benefit the city, which is honorable, but the sky is falling mentality is laughable. If No then the City will have the same tax revenue as always and current programs will continue. If Yes, then there better be a concerted effort to get the IGA lands into Open Space ASAP. Erie will be targeting every open parcel to the north. It's funny that you downpaly the upward rise in tax revenue for the City of Lafayette, because it doesn't fit your arguement for the need for more.
Right, who hasn't been like a broken record about this? I'm glad you posted, Cyclorado (who I visualize as some sort of masked superhero from Lafayette Park (feel free to give us your identity any time now...)).
I'd dispute the "sky is falling accusation." Unless your referring to anyone and everyone who's brought up issues in that mode - including, of course, the opposition - but I don't think that's been me. Feel free to peruse Dan's archives and prove me wrong.
Nor have I ever thought the sales tax issue was terribly persuasive, at all, on either side.
And finally, if I were voting ideals, without regard to pragmatics and the odds of success, I might consider a no vote a lot more seriously as a way to further open space objectives. My ideals might say that, but the reality of the situation is something else entirely.
So, yes, it's okay if people don't want development. My message has been that this is not necessarily accomplished by voting no. If you want something - ecological restoration, open space, community agriculture, low impact development, whatever - all those things involve more than just rejecting this annexation. The status quo is not economically stable, and if no prevails it will not be the final word on Waneka's land.
It figures that Schatz would be trolling for an arguement. I'm not letting you know who I am, because you would only research me and try to make me look like a fool, as you do with everyone who opposes your view point. Luckily I have little of a public record. I may sound like a broken record, but I am only posting in response to your incessant nagging. I imagine you will have the last word on this issue, as always. My vote is already in, so no time left to convert.
Sad.
Fun stuff! We could use more masked superheroes in East BoCo...
And civically-minded monkeys.
And voters who like crops of all kinds.
Timely new vote no slogan: "Lafayette needs weeds!"
I hear weed fines are going to be raised in town. New source of income!
Oh, nevermind.
This is a lot of posting for a letter that says almost nothing beyond that Aaron Harber is concerned for the safety of children and churchgoers who might find themselves at the intersection of 119th and Baseline.
One might even say it's incessant posting.
Are you trying to get the last word Schatz????
Hopefully back to a more logical vein, I am curious about the answer to some questions:
1. Do you believe there is no inflation?
2. Do you believe city employees should never get raises?
3. Do you believe city roads fix themselves?
4. Do you believe that cars, equipment, and buildings last forever?
5. Do you believe we should stop all residential development? (the reason for this question is property taxes do not offset the costs of services like road maintenance, police and fire, etc.)
If you answer yes to all of these, then I perfectly understand if you are a proponent of the static argument that says keep everything the same and we do not need anymore city revenue.
Post a Comment