As much as it could have without having the money to do so. Didn't you see the Facebook groups?

Tongue in cheek aside, yes, there were people upset by the development downtown. Turning affordable housing into expensive apartment complexes. My point is, people only really care about that stuff when it's threatening their own back yard. Which is why wealthy neighborhoods stay wealthy, single family, and car-centric, and low income neighborhoods become expensive corporate housing hellholes.

I'm not talking about this development with that question. I'm asking who you think is going to develop affordable housing in Springfield, in general? Do you think affordable housing will be funded primarily by private individuals? Or do you think apartment complexes, hopefully with some form of rent control, will be developed by corporate interests?

And the argument that the main problem with this proposal is the corporate nature of it rings hollow when corporate development is perfectly fine in the low income areas.

It's not populated with poor people, that's for sure.

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

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

Mixed. Black and dark red kidney are usually what I use.

So it's fine for affordable housing to be demolished in favor of expensive downtown apartments for students, because the neighborhood didn't have enough money to fight it, but it's not ok for mixed use development to occur in a place that wouldn't be expanding urban sprawl because the rich people who live there don't want it close to them?

Who do you think will develop the affordable housing we need so much? It's not going to be private individuals funding apartment complex builds, its going to be a corporation or two.

As I said in another comment, these exact same arguments were trotted out in relation to the bike trails and other proposals. Yall don't want your property values to be impacted by an apartment complex. Fair argument. Being upset specifically by the "corporate" part of the development smacks of "it was fine until it impacted me."

You all are just as opposed to the corporate housing development occurring around Missouri State, then? Where was the campaign to stop Grad School being demolished in favor of corporate apartments?

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.