July 28, 2005

People are Talking

A friend emails me this:

Dramatic choices face South Haven.

City planners have proposed significant changes to building ordinances that will challenge traditional heights, density, green space and, perhaps, the future livability of our city.
Developers stand in the wings with proposals that will reshape the face of our beautiful lakefront and historic, quaint downtown.
The Downtown Development Authority has diverted millions of taxpayer dollars into infrastructure support for chosen projects.

Certainly these issues, though publicly contentious between citizens and city hall, have not been covered by the local newspaper.
Unless individuals regularly attend Planning Commission, DDA meetings and City Council meetings,there is no way to be aware of the extent of the rapid and concentrated development occurring and planned in South Haven.
Though lately citizens have been watching, listening, appearing, reacting and suggesting, the reception from city hall and elected Council has been chilly.

Recently, residents expressed their concern to City representatives with a petition with the signatures of over 600 residents questioning
the height and density of planned development. The petition was first insulted, then ignored.

Last week concerned citizens submitted a proposal for a building moratorium, a simple "study period", on PUDs (Planned Unit Developments). Those who propose the moratorium simply hope it might allow some breathing space for the community to consider,
among other issues, whether or not infrastructure is adequate for development as proposed.
These citizens put up their own money for an expensive announcement in the local paper to suggest the idea and alert more local residents to the issues.
The request was that it be presented for Planning Commission consideration at their next regular meeting.

Before the Planning Commission had even seen the citizen's proposal, the Assistant City Manager (in a letter to the editor) challenged the validity and value of such a moratorium. A city government which sincerely values citizen input should encourage a balanced and open community discussion of impending changes before making such a public dismissal.

I hope the City will see the advantages of a community wide examination of the benefits and pitfalls of development pressures.
I hope the City will slow down and value the voices, concerns and visions of citizens.

Opportunistic developers and city staff may come and go, but South Haven's future belongs to all who live and work here.

Posted by Elaine at 01:35 PM | Comments (4)

July 24, 2005

Moratorium on PUDS?

A friend sends this:

Time is running out for input on how development in South Haven will occur. Glenn Sperry has submitted a proposal to the Planning Commission suggesting a nine month moratorium on development (with the exception of single family homes on a single lot.)

The idea will be something like this:

SOUTH HAVEN: PLANNING FOR ITS FUTURE

We believe that South Haven is at a critical moment.

There are about 1000 housing units under construction in, or proposed for, South Haven. In addition, there are proposed developments in neighboring townships that will also increase demand on City services. (We know that the City’s water pressure has been compromised this summer even before most of these planned developments have even been built.)

We are City of South Haven residents who believe that we don’t have all the information we need to decide what kind-- or how much-- development is good for South Haven.

We propose a nine-month halt or moratorium on city council approval of new multi and single family residential Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to carefully study the impact of such development. The proposal would not include the construction of single-family residences.

We suggest that the City take time to study issues such as:

The effect of rapid and large development on our streets, sewers, water, electrical grid, and emergency services.

The diversion of general fund property tax revenues to fund the infrastructure needs of developers (TIF: Tax Incemental Financing)..

The consequence of dense development on our natural environment, access to our water, green space and residential quality of life.

The interpretation of the Master Plan and proposed zoning ordinance changes that will permit development in the downtown that is higher and denser than ever before.

The impact on our city of development in neighboring townships.

-Contact your city council representatives and encourage them to carefully study these and other development issues. (Email addresses and phone numbers for City Council members can be found at www.south-haven.com .)

-Call City staff with your questions and concerns.

-Attend or watch City Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings and stay informed.
Stand up and be heard. Attend the public hearing concerning changes to the PUD (Planned Unit Development)
ordinance held August 4 at 7:00 in City Hall.

Together we can promote responsible development while maintaining the uniqueness and livability of our town and its neighborhoods.

Ad paid for by Citizens for Responsible Development

Another friend sends me this:

To shift gears somewhat, we keep hearing that denser development means more money. That is not necessarily the case. The law of supply and demand says a limited commodity can be more valuable than a more widely available one. What would happen if South Haven never built another house or condo? If people still wanted to be here, the value of the available properties would increase. So would tax revenue as they were sold. This justifies the establishment of high standards (including adequate infrastructure) in return for permission to develop. If the City wants more development, it had better start moving on the new water intake as well as sewage treatment plant expansion/replacement. That will require investment which won't come from property improvements in the DDA TIF district, even though a significant part of the demand will presumably come from there. The City can't very well sell the old sewer plant until they have a new one unless we all agree not to flush for a year or two.

All food for thought.

Posted by Elaine at 08:02 AM | Comments (3)

July 19, 2005

Neighbor vrs. Neighbor

Dear City Council,

Thank you for your kind attention to my presentation last evening concerning the onerous and expensive regulations that legitimate (zoned and licensed) transient lodging must meet, contrasted to the unregulated residential rentals in town.
I know it's a complicated issue and I appreciate a search for a solution that respects everyone.

I must add that it was distressing to hear Larry King, in his final comments, compare the historic Jewish resorts, now extinct, to South Haven's current B&Bs. Things change, he tells us. He called it "ridiculous" to expect a city to protect its businesses or to expect property owners NOT to rent their homes, even though these rentals are illegal in their zoning and unlicensed, unregulated and untaxed for the revenue they collect. Considering that Mr. King is also Director of the Chamber of Commerce, this comment is particularly bizarre.

Here is an interesting solution to the problem. In this case the town has decided on a fascinating compromise.
I am not saying that this is "the answer", just suggesting a possibility. I hope you will continue to discuss this.

Neighbor vs. neighbor at packed hearing on B&Bs

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Jun/29/bz/bz02p.html

Sincerely, Elaine

Posted by Elaine at 08:00 AM | Comments (16)