Woohoo 🎉

Just delaying the inevitable.

This is asinine. If you want to know why Springfield has issues attracting businesses to Springfield it is because we are still stuck in 1987 with our infrastructure. I'm not sure what was accomplished by not allowing someone willing to do something to the location of former gravel company. The people who's conservative voting (yes, it is) disallowed development in this city.deserve exactly the stagnant town we have.

That picture looks really cute. I would’ve enjoyed seeing something like that when I take my kids to that park.

Hate to see all the mad people who didn't fully understand how much it would have actually hurt the area 🤷‍♀️ oh well happy it didn't pass

[deleted]

It is more likely that people have different views on what creates a strong community rather than this being an issue where those you disagree with are uninformed.

both a fair and valid point.

Really agree with this comment.

They didn’t build a big concrete development that funneled storm drainage into the park, keeping it from becoming a swamp. So that was accomplished.

If a developer wants to develop that area, they can. If the city hadn’t conspired with this guy to let him bypass all the regulations that would keep him from ruining the park, this wouldn’t have been on the ballot.

I think it’s a bullshit false choice to say that our only choices were this deal or nothing. Now that guy can sell the land to someone else who can submit a plan that doesn’t fuck up the park.

Good news! That building is currently there, so you can take it in in all its glory.

This location isn't the quarry. This is directly across from the park where that two story grey shaker building is.

Interesting point. What is the argument that shows that building luxury apartments and storage units in that particular area creates a stronger community?

There are plenty of luxury, overpriced apartments down the road in Galloway village already. This isn't a loss. Springfield will continue to grow, but we need to be responsible with developments to preserve what we already have that is beautiful.

I’m not an advocate for this specific issue. Only expressing that we sometimes get caught up in right and wrong when there’s quite a bit of nuance.

I did serve on a planning committee for the neighborhood some years ago (I live and work near the park), and some of the objectives created by the group were buildings that felt as if they aesthetically belonged, lots of green space, and a walkable neighborhood.

There’s middle ground here but too few people sincerely interested in finding it.

I don't feel bad. There are far too many developers buying up plots of land that are zoned for a purpose and then crying that they can't do what they want with "their land".

You knew what it was for when you bought it. All these guys are buying up properties next to parks and greenways because they know people like nature...yet they contribute nothing to it.

Speaking for myself I saw it as a class warfare issue. The people of galloway aren't going to stand up to fight development in our neighborhoods. In fact, that corner of town sometimes drives the commercial development that encroaches on mine. We had the same problem with an apartment complex being built a few years ago uphill from us in our flood prone area and our protests fell on deaf ears. Since then we've had a factory move in that blocks the sunsets and drowns out the stars from the park where we used to watch them. The park itself is now being covered in astroturf, which will be great for the soccer parents who flock here from the other end of town but makes it pretty hard to enjoy for the people who bought houses next to it. I don't even know why they just bulldozed two acres of trees down the block from me but I assume it's a parking lot or strip mall. We don't get to fight those things and the people who do have the means to fight them don't really worry about them outside of their own neighborhood so it was hard to be asked to vote no to help them.

The No signs where I live are on commercial property. When the guy who owns a derelict gas station that attracts squatters yards away from where your kids play asks you to please vote to protect the sanctity of his house from the dangers of luxury apartments, it's hard to not get mad.

I originally supported this but the more I read up on the history between the city, developer, and the citizens group, it really changed my mind. We have some great people on this sub that really care about informing folks.

The quarry is expected to be redeveloped when it retires...but that's another 20-30 years to go.

Yes, downvoting me for expressing my honest opinion really wins my heart and mind over to your cause.

I did not see any persuasive arguments that the development would be a net benefit for the community or the city as a whole. The yes campaign were relying on a false dichotomy of "development at any cost" or "no development at all," and were using scare tactics, i.e. "voting no will scare off future developers." That indicated to me that there was no real benefit to rezoning aside from that gained by the developers.

There was no middle ground on the ballot question, it was a yes or no vote. Given those facts, I had to vote no.

It was very difficult to take the argument that apartments would ruin the sanctity of the neighborhood seriously when the residents built or bought homes next to a loud, dust producing gravel quarry.

You're not wrong. This city can't leave 4 acres of land unpaved for very long.

this is where i stood too, it was really hard for me to have sympathy for them when they dont care about the actual problems. but on the other side, i felt we dont need more inaccessible housing, so i was pretty torn lol

I get that second thing. I wavered back and forth a bit at first and that might not have happened if it weren't about luxury apartments. But then again I think the neighborhood would have opposed it even more vigorously in that case. It just had a NIMBY feel to it from the beginning. Plus, they bought their houses when there was an active gravel quarry, I remember how loud and dusty that neighborhood used to be. So the argument that it would ruin their neighborhood seemed kind of hollow to me. Really this group and some of these discussions affected my opinion. I saw people talking about how this sort of thing didn't belong on that end of town and I kept wondering why it wouldn't. They put all that work into making it a walkable, inviting neighborhood and it seemed like they were now shutting it down for new people. I really am happy for the residents, now hopefully they'll carry some of that goodwill into my neighborhood when soccer season comes back and maybe they'll keep in mind that people live there who need to get around and don't enjoy old socks and trash all over the park. Hopefully.

I can see your points and generally agree that the advocates didn’t make the best case. Still, I believe the core issue is a lack of alignment on what the neighborhood should become or if it should change at all. Then it comes down to a handful of folks advocating for their own best interests.

I don’t think low income housing would have faired any better, for example.

So on a side note. Does this effectively end the city's ability to freely rezone lots? I don't really understand how city government works.

No, but because the referendum process in enshrined in our city charter, if enough people disagree with a city council decision the city as a whole can vote on it.

Ah, that's pretty forward-thinking on the city charters' part.

They won't, I was told on this sub by the loudest voices against this proposal that if low income neighborhoods wanted to stop development they should pony up the resources to do it, otherwise tough shit.

If you were around back then, this is the same process that was used to remove sexual orientation and gender identity from the city's non-discrimination policy.

That lack of alignment is a larger issue. Between Grant Avenue Parkway, University Heights and Galloway, it's becoming clear that there's a small group of city leaders, developers, and influential citizens that have a particular vision for the future of Springfield, and the majority of the voting public, we can see from the numbers last night, are not on board with it.

Personally I found Cliff Smart's comment that allowing citizens to vote on rezoning sets "a very, very dangerous precedent" a bit ominous. What I took from that was, "sit down and shut up, because we know what's best for you."

Ouch double-edged I guess.

I remember reading that comment and its when my no became a yes for sure.

We did fight it in my neighborhood. We just didn't have the means to take it to court or get it on a ballot. But we went to zoning meetings and it didn't matter. In my parents neighborhood a developer actually tore the windows and doors off the houses and told them they wouldn't finish demolition until the zoning change was approved.

I usually am against NIMBYism but with so much infill land available much closer to the core of the city I felt it would be such a tragic loss to the environment to build this development at this location when there are so many more suitable areas available.

Same. I was on the fence about it mostly until then, but the fucking audacity and arrogance put on display cemented my choice.

Exactly. Nobody cares unless you have enough money to buy somebody. So fuck it, good for the goose, good for the gander and all that.

I wouldn't call mid/high end apartments a business that Springfield needs more of. Springfield does need to attract more industry business, not just build more $1,000+ a month apartments. Big difference.

It seems like any other day, this group wants more mass housing in walkable neighborhoods. Except just not their neighborhood?

Bazinga.

Don’t understand why you are getting downvoted. There is an article out there that says the developer can take still take this to court.

[deleted]

Right, Quarry Town looks like an institution from the outside and isn't much better inside. And they start at $1150 a month. For a 1 bedroom! What on earth. I refuse to believe there is high demand in this area for luxury apartments

I think a public vote on every rezoning ties up a ton of time, money and resources and is the reason we elect leaders to approve these items. Public votes should be used very sparsely when there is a major disconnect. You are right about the vision part and the city has hosted hundreds of meetings and gathered tons of input to the pave the way for our city to progress. Grant Avenue is actually a perfect example of the first result of that planning. If Springfieldians can’t see the benefit of that project then our city might as well just resign themselves to little to no major changes coming. We can’t address affordable housing without denser housing. We can’t recruit higher paying companies to our area if they can’t get their projects built or find quality workers. These issues require bold vision and changes at times. I’ve met many of these city leaders and I for one believe they have good intentions for our community and citizens.

Why did citizens vote against this policy?

Eat it!

Im happy. Now if this towns town's leadership would just leave the tranquil parts of old Springfield alone. No further developement in natural areas. Develope on existing major throughfares. And lets strive #1 priority, to bring in heavy manufacturing. WE have the highwzy and rail structure. Lets try autombile steel products semiconductors. Springfield residents deserve 40 dollar hr + benefits jobs. Mayor and council quit catering to the low balling families that try to run this town. Council you wonder why we have a brain drain here. Its because of low paying service oriented jobs.

It may seem that way, but you've got to remember, most people don't want mass housing. No young kid says, "When I grow up I'm going to live in an apartment!" People look at the heat maps of reported crime and see the obvious relationship between high density apartments and rentals and crime. Nobody aspires to work in a call center, go home to an apartment, and spend their evenings taking mad bong rips and playing video games outside of the Reddit community. I mean, it was fun in college, but as an adult? Nobody wants that.

The people in this group are who we're talking about. It's weird to watch the group think reverse course.

Obviously no one is calling for a vote on every rezoning issue, that's too ridiculous to even consider. However, when City Council votes unanimously to approve a rezoning and the vote comes out 70-30 percent against, that constitutes a major disconnect.

Good intentions and bold visions aside, people might be more receptive if we saw some substantive steps toward addressing issues that are more pressing than attracting out of state investors--poverty, homelessness, crime, and hunger, to name a few.

I don’t think many thought the outcome would be that lopsided, so I agree, this did indicate a major disconnect.

As for the other issues, I don’t think council addressing or not addressing one area has much to do with the other. They are separate issues, requiring separate commissions, staff and recommendations to be voted on and don’t preclude progress in areas such as economic development. Trust is clearly an issue to some, which is what I imagine what you’re getting at. It’s a shame, because from what I’ve witnessed our city leaders are good people with good intentions.

If I go to work tomorrow and my boss expects me to close five tickets for critical issues, and instead I spend the day cleaning out the supply closet, he's not going to feel like I'm being very effective or that I am prioritizing my tasks appropriately. I may be a good person and have good intentions, but at the end of the day I didn't do what he needed me to do.

When the city is asking for buy-in on projects like this but aren't delivering in other areas, yes, it's a trust issue, but it's also an issue of prioritization. Progress in economic development is important, but I don't see any progress whatsoever being made in the other areas I mentioned, or even any effort to address them.

I don't think there's as many people who are for high density housing as it seems though. They're just loud about it. Even the ones who are for high density housing aren't really for luxury high density housing, especially when it's plopped right across from a favorite park.

Me personally, I hate apartments, and especially when they're placed in existing neighborhoods. I hate the lifestyle it forces the residents to endure. I hate the inability to earn equity on your housing budget. I hate how landlords get richer and tenants get nothing in the long term. I hate how they destroy the value and character of neighborhoods. I hate that you can't practice your trumpet or drums there, do woodworking projects, store your canoe, work on your own vehicle, build a skateboarding half-pipe, or grow a garden. I hate the consumer lifestyle apartments promote.

You realize, to bring in large manufacturing, requires a lot of space for those buildings, lots of space isn't had in town, so they will need to take "natural space' as you put it and develop it into buildings, parking, roads, etc.

Just pointing out you can't have high economic drive, especially in manufacturing without urbanizing.

>Gestures broadly at locals

It’s a real shame it didn’t pass. I say develop it. I work with a lot of local developers and they were planning on being VERY accommodating to the park and preservation of greenspace,etc. Now it will just be developed in the future by someone else with no regard for the park.

Springfield probably doesn't have the educational base for this. It's no longer just welding pieces together. A lot of manufacturing requires advanced skills in subjects like math and engineering.

The luxury apartments all have waiting lists, so someone wants to live there.

Looks like the 2 bedroom aren't. Also occupancy doesn't mean that the residents arent scraping by to pay the rent. There's a shortage of affordable housing in this area, I have many peers who are stuck renting for the time being because the affordable houses in decent neighborhoods are being bought up by investors

Trust me i understand the education that isneeded for these innovations. But w the number of universities we have i do believe that it is possible to supply the work force. I came here 40 yrs ago to finish education. Now retired after successful career. Side bar i am personally redponsible for having a national co. Settle on Spri gfield to build manufacturing plant 400 ft jobs +. I just would like get this little town past its hurdles and the mindset tjat is here. Thanks 4 your input

True. But we have large tracts that are presently under utilized. Thanks for your input and understanding.

And our city leadership is shit.

You may be surprised. Not all of us want to live in squalor and we can afford expensive apartments.

There should be an in-depth, independent study of both historical locations, recreation places, potential “districts” in the future. Set up a citizen board of people who have no involvement directly or financially with places of interest to look into the situation at hand. Set out a group of standards and ideas regardless of the situation…historical reality in the far/middle/near past, viability of maintaining structures reasonably, how this could benefit the city/citizens as a whole, etc.

Good for you, but you're in the minority. 2020 average yearly income in Springfield was $23,679. If following the guideline of paying no more than 1/3 of income toward housing, that's $592 a month not including utilities, pet rent, etc.

Also, it's not like Springfield and surrounding areas aren't already inundated with luxury apartment housing (Heer's, The Edge, Silverleaf, The Preston, Cambium, Farmers Park, Quarry Town, Township 28, Chesterfield Lofts, 60 West in Republic, etc etc etc.)

is there anything in writing on this? If its just talk then there was a 0% chance they were going to follow up on anything mentioned.

They were never going to build the apartments, it was more about getting the land for “apartments” and then selling the land off to make money.