Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Columbia Lakes - My Take

I didn't go to the committee of the whole meeting last night as I imagine the council has its mind made up already. I have never seen our council change their minds on to many issues, granted I haven't seen our present council in action for that long.

I imagine this eventually passes the council vote next week for a few reasons.

  • Lack of legal basis to deny the developer what he wants. If the developer meets all of the guidelines for a community unit plan then denying him opens the doors for my next point..
  • The possibility of legal action. Remember that many of the sitting aldermen have stated that the city needs to get its legal bills under control. Starting a new legal battle regarding a development would leave a bad taste in many peoples mouths.
  • Four of these aldermen campaigned on the concept of controlled growth. The city working with a developer to get things done and in place may go a long way in showing other commercial developers that Columbia is interested in working with them in a rational way as well.
  • The plan on the table now is what I have refer to as "the best, worst case scenario". Not many people want to have an apartment complex built behind/amongst their current single family houses. But if given the opportunity to have 200+ units built as currently proposed or to have 500+ units built along with a convenience store and no real park/common space by the next developer, I know which most people would choose.
  • It ultimately increases the tax base.
I have submitted a FOIA request to get the minutes from 2004 when a development similar to this was proposed and voted down by the city council. The city has said it will take some time to sort through the documents and scan them in, since '04 is not saved electronically.

I find it hard to understand why no city official has gone back and checked these records themselves to see what history can illustrate to us. No elected official I have talked with could tell me why the council voted the way it did in '04.

No comments:

Post a Comment