Submitted by Realistic-Sun3480 t3_10xldzy in springfieldMO
Comments
Stat_Sock t1_j7t3aku wrote
At least the ones quoted by KY3 are nimbys
Cold417 t1_j7t5loe wrote
I wouldn't want a dog park anywhere near my house either. Call me whatever the fuck you want. XD
Ipuncholdpeople t1_j7tbd1l wrote
It's not even a full dog park though. Just somewhere for the people at the apartment to let their dogs play.
Low_Tourist t1_j7ti24w wrote
And go potty. Hopefully they clean up after their pets, but that's about 50/50 on a good day
Own_Ear_7356toss t1_j7wtds6 wrote
apartments take dog dna and fine people who don't clean up after their dogs
Low_Tourist t1_j7yfg0w wrote
LMAO no they don't. They don't have dna on file to start with. They threaten, but it's empty and hollow.
erichkutslilpp t1_j7ttxln wrote
Its pretty humorous people try to use 'nimby' as an insult. Especially considering virtually no one wants an apartment complex, or walmart, or dog park built right next to their house. The people constantly complaining about 'nimbys' are just hypocrites who have thus far been lucky with their housing location.
blu3dice t1_j7u1461 wrote
>or walmart,
Virtually no one? Plenty of folks without reliable transportation or that live in food deserts welcome new stores with access to fresh fruits, veggies and meat. Being able to walk and not depend on public transportation or expensive taxis to haul your groceries home.
erichkutslilpp t1_j7u1e94 wrote
You are completely naive if you think anyone wants a walmart built right next to their house. A block or two away? Sure, plenty of people would probably like that.
throwawayyyycuk t1_j7uve7h wrote
I would like to not live in a food desert, and I would prefer that the food locations not be neighborhood Walmarts, but that is asking a lot here
Television_Wise t1_j7vmire wrote
>anyone wants a walmart built right next to their house.
If given the choice almost no one wants anything right next to their house, they'd prefer a buffer area of nature. So that's not a Walmart or apartment building specific thing. Dude in the article is mad he's losing his nature buffer. If it was a ranch house being built there he'd still be pissed and complaining, but no one would care or quote him in an article.
Me, if somethings got to go next to where I live, I prefer the Walmart. At least it's useful to me and Walmart won't regularly drag heaps of trash into the open to burn on their lawn like multiple single family home-owners have done near me in the past...
laffingriver t1_j7uaohl wrote
are they building a walmart here? get out of here with your strawman nonsense.
its a small apartment complex, single family homes for purchase, and a small park on an otherwise untaxed piece of church realestate.
this will help the housing shortage and bring revenue to the city so we can invest in Your neighborhood.
Own_Ear_7356toss t1_j7wti6b wrote
well said
pjcanfield8 t1_j7uerst wrote
Me and many others do use NIMBY as insult. They are a group of property owners with way too much free time that they can use to go yell at city counsel meetings because they’re scared to see their neighborhood change (the poor or POC moving in) or a negative affect on their investment. It’s the exact kind of mindset that’s only going to keep getting single family homes built. That isn’t going to help the housing crisis. I don’t need single family home. I need a studio apartment which is hard to find in the Springfield area for a reasonable rate. We need more density and less sprawl for many reasons. Nimbyism and it’s effects are one of the biggest drivers of the housing crisis
VaderTower t1_j7xd79v wrote
Say it loud for the people in the back!
We must build higher density housing to solve the housing crisis, and frankly bring down prices.
Why are apartments and rentals so costly? Because the demand is high and the supply is low. Saturate the market with supply and the demand falls out, cheaper housing.
erichkutslilpp t1_j7ujdvs wrote
> That isn’t going to help the housing crisis
What housing crisis? In the last 10 years, Springfield has increased the number of housing units 7.5% while the population has risen just 6.5%. And many of those new housing units are multiple bedroom units.
The 'crisis' you might be feeling is one that revolves around our currency. You guys didn't like hearing it when the money was being passed out during covid and many still refuse to believe it. But creating 40% more currency out of thin air in less than 2 years is going to cause problems. Which you are feeling now in the form of higher rent. I sure wish economics were stressed more in school, as many people seem completely ignorant.
edit: ah the old ostrich downovtes without a logical response. Nice.
throwawayyyycuk t1_j7uw6gy wrote
I will respond, yes you’re right, Springfield specifically has no shortage of places to live! That’s actually one awesome thing about living here that I appreciate.
However, we are still effected by the disproportionate increases to rent versus minimum wage, and I’m not saying it’s the fault of anyone, but the people making the least money are still out of luck when it comes to finding an affordable apartment, let alone a house to buy. My point is that it is better in Springfield and the gap is smaller than many places in the country, but it’s still there and people are still struggling.
laffingriver t1_j7uuxnm wrote
“cause problems”. please tell us in plain english, like we are a five year old,
how $1400 checks from 2 years ago have anything to do with rent prices today, or how those checks affected home inventories.
use specifics, draw a direct line. and then do us a favor and tell us what that has to do with this development.
Television_Wise t1_j7vm26g wrote
>or walmart
Having lived near a Walmart, it's actually pretty sweet. It's so convenient when you need something for a recipe you're out of, or you don't feel like cooking and want to pick up a pre-made salad.
If you're thinking "but the noise", what noise? Even the 24 hours ones never had much traffic late at night, which is when you need quiet, and none of them are 24 hour now anyway.
I agree with the point you were trying to make, but I think you have the wrong idea about why Walmarts get NIMBY'd. Usually it's people trying to protect local grocery stores and small businesses closing as a result of Walmart taking their customers.
Mechanicallvlan t1_j7t6l94 wrote
I feel the same way, although I guess it couldn't be much worse than living in one of the neighborhoods where basically every house has a dog in the yard.
the_honeyman t1_j7tgt5m wrote
I'd much rather have a dog park than a bunch of neighbors who don't keep their dogs under control.
pile_of_holes t1_j7u8syc wrote
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.
snuggle_sauce t1_j7ubsuc wrote
Guess they should have bought that land themselves if they didn’t want change.
WendyArmbuster t1_j7xqpxy wrote
"Should have been born rich if you didn't want things to suck"
snuggle_sauce t1_j7xrwp1 wrote
Buy it, bitch about it, or move. Those are the only options.
WendyArmbuster t1_j7xt2go wrote
They could encourage their elected leaders to keep it zoned as-is. I wouldn't consider that bitching about it. That's civic engagement.
antiquated_human t1_j7vb9h8 wrote
Something none of the articles mention is that large building is beyond dilapidated. It has been neglected for decades and is probably months at most from being condemned.
The church needs this to dodge a massive expense, so expect full court press from them. If this drags out, that building could legit fall
Gingersnap5322 t1_j7w0fnq wrote
“What he’s planning is going to put a doggie park and a detention pond right at my back door,” said Fred Sherwood, who lives near the proposed development.
Oh no how terrible
[deleted] t1_j7x6mn4 wrote
[removed]
VaderTower t1_j7xdii0 wrote
Yeah! Screw the developer for making it not flood downstream! And screw dogs!
/S to be safe.
Gingersnap5322 t1_j7xdq4t wrote
Cat life Motherfucker!!
Jk I own both
Own_Ear_7356toss t1_j7wt8z7 wrote
It sounds like they are going to have some smaller, more affordable apartments. Not sure why this is so terrible. The woman who was using her child having autism as a reason to not do the project was especially sad and seems desperate. People claiming it will bring down their property values? Gotta be kidding me - when does new housing on the north side, or almost anywhere, adversely effect home values?
NeverEndingCoralMaze t1_j7wj1gk wrote
TIL Springfield has a north.
[deleted] t1_j7zipyy wrote
[removed]
WendyArmbuster t1_j7wrrse wrote
Is there a way to re-zone this so that higher density housing can be built, but it must always be owner-occupied? Like, can we mandate that this development must be condos? I would imagine that that would be the end of it, because condos don't offer an eternity of income at the expense of the equity of the residents. Our ratios of rentals to owner-occupied are already way, way, way too high.
VaderTower t1_j7xe5m6 wrote
The applicant would need to specifically ask for that condition. P&Z couldn't do it without the owner asking. City Council could, but very unlikely and unpopular intervention.
That being said you're right that condos would kill the project, but that's not because of the lack of infinite rent. Developers build condos all the time, build for $x sell for $x*150%. The demographic that would buy condos at the cost they would be build for, is non-existent in that location. I'd be pressed to find a specific location in Springfield that could support a condo development. People in Springfield, based on market studies, don't really want condos.
WendyArmbuster t1_j7xpm9v wrote
>People in Springfield, based on market studies, don't really want condos.
What's the difference between a condo and an apartment? What's the difference between a condo and a house? Why would people choose a house over a condo? Why would people choose an apartment over a condo? The answers to these questions tell us what our housing priorities should be in Springfield.
>What's the difference between a condo and an apartment?
A condo requires a decent credit score, some savings, and a good skilled job, while most people can get an apartment. But, an apartment is a constant financial loss, while a condo is an investment, and builds equity.
>What's the difference between a condo and a house?
Living in a house enables you to work on your own car, do your own projects, have a wood shop, a place to store your canoes and kayaks, grow a garden, and a multitude of other things that condo living doesn't generally afford. Condo living is generally no higher quality of life than living in an apartment.
>Why would people choose an apartment over a condo?
Either they are young and unsure of their future, like a college student, or because they have no other financial choice. There are just very few other reasons. The quality of life is the same, but the financial upsides of condos absolutely crush the financials of living in an apartment. It's insane that an adult would choose an apartment over a condo.
This begs the question: Why would the city of Springfield prioritize apartments? What is the long-term upside for Springfield?
kayteebeckers t1_j7u0gtx wrote
They're going to have to rebuild Watkins. That school won't be able to hold an influx of kids that development will bring.
VaderTower t1_j7udm1l wrote
Typically if a school is overwhelmed they just redraw district lines. Most schools aren't at full capacity.
laffingriver t1_j7t1juq wrote
nimbys