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

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.

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?

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.

>They are saying the development will put money towards drainage, road improvements

My understanding is that this means a pipe diverting storm drainage into the park, which is bad.

>keep over 100 mature trees.

My understanding is this means they’re getting rid of about 300, so they’re getting rid of 3/4 of trees in that area, which will not help with storm drainage, which is bad.

>I don’t understand what we’re trying to save in Galloway.

My understanding is that they’re trying to prevent the above things. We can turn the park into a dark swamp or cope with the wealthy developer not being able to buy another boat for his kid this year.

Lol, you have a 6 day old comment about using vape cartridges which are 100% certainly mass-produced.

A rich guy is upset because the city gave him a sweetheart deal to develop a scenic but very flood-y area into boutique apartments for rich kids, but now everyone living in the area is upset that the deal lets him get away with ruining the area by making the flood-y-ness worse. Those residents have gathered the resources to oppose him as a group. Their efforts have resulted in the question being put on the ballot.

My info is from a meeting where the developer and the group of residents both presented their cases. The developer made a point to complain about how the city had basically guaranteed him that this would be easy money, like he thought that was a good argument to get people on his side about it.

Aside from the info distributed at that meeting, you'll find plenty of people arguing either side. There has been money spent to try and persuade residents that this development is in their best interest. I have heard that these corporate-owned boutique apartments somehow help with affordable housing (at the meeting they said units for as low as $1800/month, so definitely not affordable housing in springfield MO), and I have heard that we need to vote yes on this because a future plan could somehow be worse. Have heard a lot of people complaining that the residents are just being NIMBYs, which I think would be a fair accusation if the group wasn't making a good argument for voting 'No'.

Anyway, here is the site for the 'Vote No' group and they lay things out pretty well:

https://www.gallowayvillage.org/no-rezoning

There's a whole section describing the timeline of events.

Lol, no.

It sounds like you don't have an argument for your position and now you're just doing a gish-gallop to keep from having to defend any of the bullshit you say. Hell, you admitted as much already:

>I don't even have skin in the game. I couldn't care less what happens down there. The hypocrisy is real, is all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/springfieldMO/comments/yd5yjb/vote_no_on_question_1/itr02e5/

yeah, the hypocrisy is definitely real.

I'm asking for a reason to vote yes that wouldn't also work to argue for developing the park. I'm asking the question because I think we should all be able to agree that we don't want to convert our public parks into apartment buildings, but the arguments I'm seeing to vote yes are arguments that you could also use to argue that we should convert public parks into apartment buildings.

Like, if the argument is affordable housing, and we need these apartments to increase the amount of affordable housing (directly or indirectly), then hell, why not develop the park into affordable housing or apartment buildings as well?

If building the apartments is going to impact homelessness so much that we are overlooking the issues with the development, then why not just develop the park as well?? If we need the housing that badly then it would really help to develop the park and the surrounding area into these apartment buildings. "Or do you not care about the problem of homelessness and care so much more about having a nice stroll??"

If the argument is about NIMBYs, then I can basically say the same thing. "Why are we so committed to preserving the scenic views of rich old people living around this park??"

Or... you don't have a real reason.

>I don't even have skin in the game. I couldn't care less what happens down there.

Yeah of course, you're just here to spew a bunch of bullshit without knowing what you're talking about.

>The hypocrisy is real, is all.

This is just more bullshit.

>If that's a bad argument, so is the "yes on 3."

I'm just gonna copy paste this one from my previous comment:

>Don't try to change the topic just because your argument is bad.

DUDE, you already admitted that the affordable housing argument is bullshit:

>This one I agree with you on, more expensive apartments won't fix the affordable housing problem, but that isn't really the area to focus on affordable housing, imo.

https://www.reddit.com/r/springfieldMO/comments/yd5yjb/vote_no_on_question_1/itqjl2g/

Why do you go so hard on lying???

You're not giving any argument for why we should develop the land.

Rich old folks live in the park? I think that's illegal. TRY AGAIN.

That's not an argument for why we should develop the land around the park into a boutique apartment village. Try again.

>And yet, that's the exact logic people are using to say vote yes on Amendment 3. Hmm.

Don't try to change the topic just because your argument is bad.

>Are we suddenly pretending to have a problem with the corporate owned part? I'd be extremely curious to know the percentage of people who live in that neighborhood who made their money via working the corporate rat race, and who don't see problems with ordering shit from Amazon at the drop of a hat.

I'm just gonna go back and copy paste a previous comment I made towards you:

>Dude, the amount of water you're carrying for a wealthy-ass development company is disgraceful.

Nah I think it's about whether or not it's a good idea to develop the area around sequiota park into a boutique apartment village so that a wealthy development company can make money and rich kids can have a scenic background for their apartment balconies.

Although yeah, there are reductionist assholes out there who are carrying water for the wealthy development company and the rich kids by pretending like anyone who doesn't love putting Sequiota park in the shade of a bunch of apartment buildings are only doing so because they are "galloway home owner nimbys".

So we're just supposed to want this development because if we don't, then we might be faced with an even worse deal in the future?

That's a terrible argument!

And you're still just ignoring the bullshit you said earlier, which is what I called you out on:

>Why would you not want a new mixed use development in your neighborhood? More amenities, walkable neighborhoods, all of these are good things. Corporate owned housing not so much, but capitalists gonna capitalist i guess.

WTF was up with that, huh? Why are you trying to pretend like this proposal isn't mainly about corporate-owned housing??

Why would you just assume that about anyone?

I'm not carrying water for anyone, I don't want more corporate-owned, boutique apartment villages in this town, and I especially don't want them putting a nice park in their buildings' shade when it's nice trees right now.

I don't care that a wealthy development company wants to provide a bunch of rich kids with a scenic background for their apartment balconies at the expense of the park and the people in town who use it.

Lol at the idea that galloway will look like west bypass if we don't give this developer what they want.

Sounds like an argument for some type of slimy salesman: "If you don't take my deal then it's going to be bad for you"

Find me an argument for why this land should be developed into apt buildings that wouldn't also work to argue developing the land in the ACTUAL PARK and maybe voting yes will start making sense to me.

Dude, the amount of water you're carrying for a wealthy-ass development company is disgraceful.

Because right now there are a bunch of trees around there and that is nicer for the people at the park than a bunch of apartment buildings.

I personally would like to still have some sunshine there after 3pm instead of just being in the shade of an apartment building.