It is my understanding that the developer asked for the land to be rezoned. The zoning commission and city council both approved the rezoning.

My follow up would be: How close are the other residential properties to this, And how do those property owners feel about it?

Edit: I ask this because as a property owner myself, I know what it's like to fight and lose against city council issues like this. Most of them only care about how much money it will make the city, not about how much money the neighbors will lose on their investments.

Thank you for the replies. The neighbors are against it and therefore I will vote NO on Question 1

The City is not asking for it; City Council approved the rezoning years ago and the neighbors attempted to appeal the decision. It escalated into a court case between the property owner/developer and the neighbors, which led to the ballot question.

I'm not sure how close other residential properties are and I'm a terrible guesser at distances.

The residents of Galloway are very against this happening. They are the ones that got it on the ballot. Had they not pursued this option, the land would have been rezoned already and construction would have begun.

the city. if your talking about over by Mercy. the home owner over there REALLY DO NOT want to let get rezoned and that intersection is already a nightmare and would get worse if rezoned

about 5 feet to the closest one here the red box is the area to be rezoned it BUTTS RIGHT up to the homes https://i.imgur.com/qgwhA3N.png

There's a church to the west and an incredibly fancy home/professional photography studio to the north. The quarry is to the south and Sequiota Park is to the east.

The property owner to the north with the photography studio was very outspoken in her opposition to the rezoning when City Council reviewed it, as was Galloway generally.

the rezoning would extend down that side of National and Sunshine and butt up right to people back yards like to does the other way from the intersection down sunshine

google maps link https://goo.gl/maps/Z3WrDZ65gBs7enyY8

I think you've got this confused with the zoning concerns in the University Heights neighborhood. Question 1 on tomorrow's ballot pertains to the area in Galloway only.

huh they had signs up in the yards there for Question 1 as well

The entire city is voting on this matter so they're showing support.

It makes sense that those residents would come out against the rezoning of Galloway in case they end up following the same path as the Galloway residents have.

Naw that's not what they're asking about :)

Question 1 is about Galloway, not National and Campbell.

The location is directly across from Sequoita park, between 4x4 Brewing and the About Faces photography studio. So it really affects everyone that uses the park or the trail, not just residents of Galloway.

This is just another case where the city is ambushing the property of the surrounding area for the profit of the rich developer. This property could be developed to a standard that would protect the integrity of the area; the City of Springfield, refuse's. If you drive north from Republic Rd, on Lone Pine, you will notice a jog in the road that was developed with the use of a median that does not meet any design standard for the road classification. There is a very dangerously narrow lane left that is buffered on the right with a makeshift spillway. This meets no design standard in the USA, today. The parking lot allowed along the road is not proper development for this road classification. It's dangerous. This developer in named O'Reilly, so I am told. Why would the city do this for this developer?

The next development north is an apartment house developed by the Coryell's, who claim many thousands of apartments owned in Springfield. Between these two developments is Allen St. This was always called a private street by the city. This street should have been brought up to code by the developers of these two properties. The city cut these two developers a deal and required no code. Why? Is money a problem for these two. This street is always one of the streets planned for connection from the rest of the city to the property to the East. Not meeting code means that your taxes will someday be used to make this street meet code. Coryell, put his building on hold because of the financial crises of '08-9. O'Reilly, came in in the mid 2000's. The only place in town that was blighted and therefore worthy of tax breaks was downtown. All of a sudden with the O'Reilly, name here the City of Springfield, wants to make this area a blighted area, and give O'Reilly, and Coryell a deal for no tax on the already planned development . You pay taxes, I pay taxes, not the Oreilly's and Coryell's. Why?

The City of Springfield has for 30 years refused to make large developers meet city standards that all of the rest of us meet. Just one professional in the Administration of the City should be enough to stop this. It does not happen. Vote no on the continued improper development in Gallaway and, the ambushing of established citizen investments in homes for developer profit. Gene Walker

This is some nimby shit. I'm voting yes.

Thank you for explaining that. I was on the fence about this cause we need more housing in Springfield, but not if doing so allows corporations more tax breaks. Their (company) savings never trickle down to benefit anyone but their own coffers.

Nothing in this town, south and east of Grand and Kansas Expy should ever be allowed a "blighted" label.

Galloway village has a lot of documentation about it on their site. I’m from the area and it’s a really bad idea. Given the current road conditions, lack of water draining, and 100 other reasons it will drastically effect the area and turn a quiet park onto a major intersection.

I’d rather have development. Already have a house.

Every neighbor within 500ft opposes this.

Lol classic.

>Fuck 'em, I got mine.

For everyone who thinks the park is better for the city as-is, instead of the dark swamp that this development would turn it into, pls vote no.

I don't live in the area but I don't want the park to be turned into a dark swamp. Am I a nimby? And if so, can you explain why?

Have you ever been to sequoia park and enjoyed it? If the answer is yes, then vote no. It's not houses that are on the line, it's the park

What do you mean? Do you have a link?

See what happens when you get important advice from Reddit users?

I’m pro-growth anti-NIMBY but after looking into what little info is available on ecological impact, including storm water, I’m voting NO.

Sift through the crap and you can get some useful information.

Not one person who is "for it" has given a reason, let alone a good reason.

It's also about a rich couple who thought they could bully their way into a big payout and gambled on being able to change zoning so they can build high end apartments. I'm not sacrificing our natural resources so some capitalist can profit.

I fought against city council years ago because they let a developer destroy my neighborhood and lost a lot of money on my home because of it. Why shouldn't we fight?

Not one of those council members would want commercial development next to their homes. We have a right to fight against these money grabbing people.

How would it turn the park into a swamp? Seems like they largely wanted to turn that shitty old quarry into something useful.

We can fix high housing prices by building apartment complexes and bring business to the area with other businesses. Just look at the other new apartments.

Ffs it's a bunch of rich people upset that their property values will go down despite it being progress for the city's growth.

"Fuck em, I got mine" is your logic. More people need housing. This will alleviate that.

Gonna explain why you're wrong on each point, in order:

>How would it turn the park into a swamp? Seems like they largely wanted to turn that shitty old quarry into something useful.

Nah man, if you looked at the development plan you'd know that instead of having to create a detention area for storm drainage, the dude just has to put a pipe under the street sending storm drainage INTO THE PARK. The area is already prone to flooding, there are signs about it up all around in the area. This is part of what people are pissed about, the dude is going to replace a bunch of area that currently absorbs water with a concrete funnel that sends that drainage into the park.

>We can fix high housing prices by building apartment complexes and bring business to the area with other businesses. Just look at the other new apartments.

This is supply-side trickle-down bullshit that is not accurate to real life. More corporate-owned boutique apartments for rich kids will not somehow create the affordable housing we need.

Yes, a development in that spot would bring more money to the area. We don't have to give a developer a bunch of tax breaks, and permission to ignore a bunch of regulations that keep the park from being swampified to get a development there. The city and the developer just thought they'd be able to do that without anyone noticing beforehand.

>Ffs it's a bunch of rich people upset that their property values will go down despite it being progress for the city's growth.

Ffs it's a wealthy developer who is mad that the mayor told him he could fuck the park but the town isn't letting him.

Is development not a good enough reason?

Lol, boutique apartments for rich kids is not something that addresses the need for affordable housing. It's the cause, not the solution.

plenty of space on the north and west sides of sgf that need demoed and developed. build housing ther and get it up to standard

Yes it does. More housing for rich kids leaves more places for everyone else. Supply and demand.

You make some good arguments. You gotta link to that development plan?

EDIT: Also, how would more housing not alleviate prices? Even if it's for rich people, it would leave more houses for the rest of us?

Besides it's currently zoned for single family homes. Changing the zoning would allow future, more affordable developments.

No because that could mean anything.

Good point, but is Springfield just going to grow north and south?

That’s me too. If government won’t listen to the citizens then that’s exactly what this referendum is for. I’m voting no to tell city council and the Chamber (who put like $15,000 into a PAC) that forced growth is not the answer.

I think we need more affordable housing. I’m not sure this is what that will be. Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Many of these new developments are fairly pricey apartments/lofts.

Fwiw, I live in the area and it's not just a nimby issue. The traffic in the area is already a nightmare, adding mass residential units is not going to make that better. There's the ecological issues that has already been mentioned. The whole time this back and forth has been going on between the developer, city council, and the area residents, the people living in the area keep getting railroaded by city council and stack the cards in the developers favor. And BS to the argument of creating affordable housing in Springfield... Almost all the land and properties in my neighborhood is owned or recently purchased by an out of state developer. If it's rezoned and apartments are going to be built, then it's going to be a bunch of trendy, overpriced Prada units that won't have any meaningful effect to people seeking housing that can't afford a Tesla and other inherited privileges.

Stormwater was already debunked per the 417biz article who asked city stormwater/public works engineers.

Sorry, let me be more specific. Housing and business space development. Happy?

For an actual analysis on it.

There are plenty parts of north, north/central, and west springfield that could do with demoing the abandoned, deteriorated, or otherwise eyesore homes that just need torn down. Just need to offer a good enough price and most people would probably move out. Demo a whole block, build apartments, develop the community by investing in the worse parts of town and making them better, rather than whatever they have planned for one of the more scenic parks in the area. South springfield overwhelmingly is nice as is, we need investments in the north and west. There are some historical homes worth saving, but the majority of houses up there arent worth much more than the land they sit on under normal circumstances. Overly inflated real estate market is the only reason the houses there have halfway decent value right now.

In regards to actual expansion rather than working with the space we have.

The terrain to the north of springfield gets a little dicey but theres plenty of open space. Also potential tornado issues when we do have them.

To the south, there isnt much more to expand without just absorbing Nixa at this point.

West, plenty of open space and buildable terrain, but frequently visited by tornados. So build with caution.

East is pretty viable, plenty of space and developable land between springfield and rogersville. Rarely threatened by storms. Need to redo some parts of hwy60 for the increased traffic and you could develop/expand easily over there.

They are "luxury apartments." This new development is planned to start at between $1600 and $1800/mo.

[removed]

I was on the fence but going to be a yes. The electioneering at my polling place pissed me off I voted no. Way to shoot yourself in the foot with the hard sell question 1 proponents.

Residential properties are not adjacent to it. There is Sequiota to the east, quarry to the south, restaurant and church to the west, and photography shop to the north. I will vote yes on this. From what I've read, the developer had compromised on every metric possible including preserving existing "historic" structures, saving as many trees as possible, increasing green space by way more than minimum required by code, reducing the proposed building from 4 stories to 2 stories and much more.. he has done everything possible to work with the neighborhood but they seemingly can't be reasoned with. If this fails, he will likely sell and there's nothing stopping the next property owner from razing the site.

Here's a direct Copy/Paste "letter to the editor" article in SBJ:

Dear editor,

On Nov. 8, we as a city will be voting on whether or not a development in Galloway Village will be built.

I commend the community in Galloway Village for speaking their mind and advocating for meaningful improvements to their neighborhood. It was solely because of their action that 150 mature trees will be preserved with this [proposed] development. It is wholly due to their passion that four historic buildings will be saved from demolition. This development [plan] creates 75% more green space than is required entirely as a result of Galloway neighbors’ voices.

I equally applaud the developer for listening to neighborhood opinions and making significant changes based on their feedback. Valid concerns about traffic, pedestrian safety and stormwater management all contributed to significant changes to the original design of the project.

Will these accommodations satisfy everyone? Of course not. But in a pluralistic community with so many competing interests, it is unrealistic to please everyone. In this case, I think it’s fair to say that neither side got exactly what they wanted. Perfect. Compromise worked.

It’s also worth noting that there’s real risk when we fail to compromise. Today, this development [proposal] protects 150 mature trees and four historic buildings from demolition. These protections could be lost on Nov. 8.

One can only wonder what the corner of National and Sunshine might look like today had compromise allowed a bedand-breakfast to be built in 2016. Today, in Galloway, we have a bird in our hand.

I am voting “yes” on Question 1 because I believe the necessary and extensive outreach to neighbors and stakeholders was successful, resulting in a design enhancing the quality of place in Galloway.

I hope that's for family sized apartments. Is there even a demand at that price point for single inhabitant dwellings?

There is a big demand for that area, Quarry Town and Township have long waiting lists.

If you drive through that area, it's PLASTERED with vote no yard signs in from of, I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say, probably half the houses

Lol, so rich parents just let low-income people crash in their kids' room when the kid moves into one of these boutique apartments??

Your logic is so dumb that even 70% of this town knew it was bullshit.