It’s 30ish units. Article says it amounted to less than 6 units an acre, which is pretty low density. By contrast, the apartments we voted down in Galloway were proposed at 26 units per acre.

This is not a high density development, and is likely to be less impactful than your typical apartment development.

Failure to register them when city ordinance calls for it isn’t wrong? Failure to neuter (while not illegal) is certainly a wrong from a responsible pet ownership perspective, along with failure to have an outdoor space capable of containing two large dogs.

Alongside the failure to do the most basic thing, getting your dog vaccinated for rabies, these things are pretty damning to me. Doesn’t matter who let them out the door.

Edit: typos.

You should be in the habit of shopping car/home insurance rates every couple years. Insurance companies expect churn, and being long time ‘loyal’ customer means nothing. They will raise rates arbitrarily, and count on a significant number of people doing precisely nothing. As they are all using this same practice, it guarantees customer churning. Shop a couple of new companies and you’ll almost certainly be offered a rate that has near parity with the cost you’re accustomed to for similar coverage (in the situation you described where no recent claims are in play and your vehicle has not changed).

Well said. Your middle paragraph is spot on. I do live in Galloway, and we recognize the parcel will be developed. We feel that it can be effectively developed with the current zoning. The proposed development is too high density and not at all in character with its context. In a place like Galloway, character and context are so important to preservation of the aspects that make Galloway attractive. We want to preserve that character so that Springfield at large can enjoy it into the future, rather than have something built which will be detrimental to that, while really only benefiting the developer, and which will lose the shiny attractive newness in about 10 years, right as those tax abatements would be ending.

First there was that fire at the pork rinds place. Now the doggone train derailed?

This can only mean one thing.

The darn Baldknobbers are coming for your trousers!

The hero we need.

El Lago does thin chips and cold salsa better than any I’ve had.

So you want a roaster who doesn’t also operate a shop? Don’t know any of those.

I only ask because I know that Echelon (at Kearney and Glenstone) for instance, roast and sell their own beans, under the ‘No Coast’ moniker - No Coast Coffee, Springfield MO (Same owner - Joe started as a roaster, the shop is the latest addition)

There are several varieties for sale at the shop, or online. I’ve not tried one I didn’t enjoy.

I’m pretty certain that one of the downtown shops is also roasting their own or at least affiliated with a local roaster, but I know less about them.

A property owner has the right to ask what they like for their property in a real estate transaction. Their only responsibility is to pay the property taxes, and ensure the property is maintained such that it does not become a nuisance. Sadly, the former owner was obviously not holding up their end on that second point, and the City had the responsibility to enforce this, and didn’t.

The eventual buyer (developer) took on the responsibility to maintain the property. They purchased several aging homes on lots with single family zoning in place. They do not have the right to expect the zoning to be changed to fit their pre-existing idea of the highest and best use for the property, but rather the option to go through the process of re-zoning, which, in the City of Springfield, involves being forthright and open about the development plan, and gathering feedback from the community in instances where the property is within the bounds of a recognized neighborhood association, as is the case here.

The fact that the seller may have wanted more than the property was worth with the zoning that was in place is irrelevant.

The fact that the developer bought it anyway, and has taken the stance that they are doing us a favor, but will only do it if allowed to do so in exactly the way they want, is what I believe has caused so much bristling among the neighbors. The houses were doomed years ago, and I think reasonable people will agree.

The developer is catching heat because they clearly know what is best, and have done fuck all beyond conducting the required community meeting to try and gain any support, or show that they are open to modifying their plan to make it more palatable to their neighbors, who have legitimate concerns.

So, AFAIK, the requested rezoning has not actually happened at this juncture, is that correct?

I can see the play here, go ahead and demolish the structures the community is so attached to so that the scene is set for the ‘might as well rezone it now since they’re gone, no use crying anymore’ card.

As a Galloway resident, I hope the UH folks are able to at the very least cost the developers a great deal of their time/energy/funds to get to their goal.

I understand the point that no one with the funds to live in those houses would have ever wanted to anymore, given the location. That said, the trend toward developers looking at a responsible rezoning as a simple process that is just a bump on the road toward using their new property to its highest and best potential, rather than as an opportunity to build consensus and develop property in a manner that is in kind with its context, is an all too common occurrence in Springfield.

You can look at Galloway and see a developer that bought a property that wasn’t ever even listed on the market for sale, who assumed that a rezoning would be quick and easy, so they could get to the business of erecting apartments blocks in a wholly R-SF area, and printing that money. Our neighborhood isn’t against developing that property. We’re against irresponsible development that is out of character for its surroundings. It could be developed as high end SF homes a lá ‘The Hill’, just past the CVS, or even perhaps some townhomes, and I’d wager there would be little complaint.

A successful re-zoning should not be a foregone conclusion when a developer decides to invest in an area. Cooperation and buy-in from local residents and stake-holders must be a significant part of the process, or this adversarial relationship between the city, its residents, and it’s history, will only continue to get worse.

I mourn the loss of these grand old homes. I hope that the UH neighborhood can come together and be a force that cannot be ignored as the process of redeveloping that corner continues.

And I urge anyone who is a potential voter in the City of Springfield to get out and vote NO on Question 1 when the time comes. Development is important, but it must be done in an informed manner, responsibly with regard to the environment and the surrounding community, and with the consideration and consent of the community.

Vote NO and show the City, the Chamber, the Money Men, that we are informed, unified, and demanding to be included in the processes that ultimately shape our neighborhoods going forward.