Submitted by Frosty-Succotash8126 t3_yn3nt1 in springfieldMO
Raider3447 t1_iv83wwd wrote
Reply to comment by banjomin in Ballot by Frosty-Succotash8126
I don’t want the park turned into drainage either. If the project is done properly, then I think it will be a good thing. The flip side to this, is another developer comes in with a plan that people like even less and it doesn’t get stopped.
I’m a simple man. I like cool restaurants, bars and biking trails near my home. If this helps that cause, then I’m all for it.
bthornsy t1_iv8t5eg wrote
That’s not what it’s going to be though. Can you imagine what ripping out 287 mature trees and plopping an Ingram mill style five story apt complex against a two lane road will do? They have no real plans for infrastructure improvements beyond a speed bump lol.
As for flooding, the current vegetation is literally the only thing holding back flooding running down the hill as well. It gets bad enough during the rainiest times.
The most important thing to note is, the neighborhood (which I am not a part of) is actually in favor of responsible development of the area in its current zone, light commercial. If they tucked a cool, modern, single story light commercial development into the trees and added greenway access, that’d be sweet! Galloway neighborhood has expressed interest in something like this. They’ve even expressed interest into rezoning for light single family residential and even light mixed use!
The real issue is city officials/real estate companies who have vested interest in $1200/mo+ apartments overlooking the park. They tried shoving this rezoning through, hoping they could dupe Springfield residents into letting private interests capitalize on one of springfields few truly green spaces in town. Corrupt AF.
Oh, and the taxes will be deferred for TEN YEARS for the developers. How will that help anybody but the investors and developers? Hate to rant, but this issue gives springfieldians a real chance at deciding what happens with our nice spaces, I hope we don’t squander it.
Please vote NO on #1.
pile_of_holes t1_iva6zeo wrote
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.
Raider3447 t1_iv914az wrote
Thanks for your take on it. I agree that we don’t need more apartments. I’d like to think Galloway could be something similar to Rogers/Bentonville areas with lots of things to do outdoors. Throw in some cool places to eat and grab a drink and that would be great. However, I think the tax deferment is justified if the development can bring in business (tax) dollars.
I get frustrated seeing progress derailed by bullshit and I hope this doesn’t fall in line with the square redevelopment from 15 years ago. There were some great ideas for the square but once someone got a historical designation slapped on the fountain, it effectively killed the project.
I did read this article a few minutes ago:
It does change how I feel about it. I’m anti apartments and pro bars/restaurants.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments