The developer has no plans for dealing with runoff? That's a legitimate argument, though it seems like a failure on the planning and zoning commission to make them address it if true.

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

>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??

Because mixed use, walkable development is objectively better than urban sprawl single family dwellings where everybody needs a car to do anything? 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.

Did we just become best friends?

I don't think the "no" votes are assholes, I just wish they'd be honest, instead of pretending they have an issue with corporate owned anything.

Because it doesn't matter what is proposed to do with that area, the same group of wealthy nimbys come out in full force against it. The bike trails, several other proposals for that area, everything. Trying to argue its about this particular plan feels disingenuous, when everything meets the same level of opposition and the same arguments are trotted out every time.

The developer is looking towards mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods, and has plans to replace more trees than somebody like a subdivision developer would.

As opposed to carrying water for wealthy-ass NIMBY landowners?

Pot meet kettle.

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.

As opposed to a subdivision developer who replaces 20 large trees with two saplings?

Ok. How would the park be ruined by building apartments across the street from the park?

Plenty of developers are picking up those abandoned properties. The Blue House Project in the area around the Fairbanks, Grant is being revitalized in anticipation of the new development along the avenue, im seeing fly-by-night renovations happening all over the place where old abandoned houses used to be.

There just isn't as much money in it.

I don't believe that one bit. The residents of Galloway don't want development there at all, regardless of who develops it, NIMBY is the primary reason people are pushing NO so hard, those residents couldn't care less about corporate ownership.

Who is going to make the commitment to mixed use developments like this other than corporate developers in this country?

How would the park be ruined by building apartments down across the street?

This is pretty much exactly the reason I'll be voting yes. Just be honest about being a NIMBY and I'd respect you more.

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.

Agreed. The only thing better imo are the dark snowy days in mid January where there's already 6 inches+ of ice and snow on the ground.

If you "ignore the north side" like all these terrified south siders suggest, you'll miss the only culture this godforsaken town has to offer in downtown and on Commercial Street, as well as a few of the best neighborhoods in town in Phelps Grove, Rountree and parts of West Central just North of Drury.

You said you're from Chicago. Our north side is going to feel like Mayberry to you. I live directly in one of those "bad" neighborhoods everybody is so scared of and love it. There are places that I wouldn't live, but there's basically nowhere I wouldn't walk. Granted, I'm a big white dude, so ymmv on the midnight walks.

All that to say, if you want 100 year old craftsman and craftsman-adjacent houses as well as proximity to all of the cool things that happen in town look north of Sunshine, especially in those neighborhoods I already mentioned above. If you want McMansions behind picket fences, and HOA Karens measuring your grass with rulers, check out the south side.

Lol

Also on Facebook, and by far the best source of info on this stuff. These guys definitely put the "labor" in "labor of love."

I'm getting through to the answering machine, but might as well not be, for all the good it's doing.

Hijacking top comment to ask a question I've been wondering...

Is the bike park tied to this ballot measure? That's the thing that would sway my vote. I couldn't care less about what privileged rich NIMBYs want or don't want, and development that doesn't increase our already outrageous urban sprawl would be nice, but fuck pushy developers as well.

Therapy worked wonders for me. Call up Ozarks Counseling Service, they have a sliding scale that is extremely affordable (up to free if you really can't pay) if you don't have/they don't take your insurance.

DJ James River, aka JC Tree

I was honestly just considering doing just that. Showing up in person.

Pretty lame that that's where we are collectively now.

Well, the recent move was a factor I was unaware of, but they have historically been hard to get ahold of, they were my son's first pediatric care. Really seems like I just need to look elsewhere at this point.

Home State Health. No, I don't use Mercy.