View Full Version : Really pissed at planning commission....



buckt
12-04-2009, 06:16 AM
Okay. Normally I'm a pretty calm guy..very few things really get me pissed. But what I am seeing take place in buildings in Edmond through the approval of the Planning Commission is making me insane. We are saturated with a zillion square feet of empty retail space. More and more apartments are being planned and built. It appears as though the planning commission totally ignore looking at the history of towns where too much retail space and apartments are the beginning of the end for communities. Need proof? Just look at many areas of OKC and you will see where planning commissions have permitted a saturation of retail/apartments and those places are empty and property values plumment. I'm about the grab the Edmond Planning Commission by the ear and give them a personal tour of the blighted areas of OKC and show them what we can expect in Edmond unless they start thinking beyond their nose! Arrggghh.....

PennyQuilts
12-04-2009, 06:17 AM
I don't blame you for feeling that way. I don't know anything of the particulars but you DON'T want that sort of blight, for sure.

Steve
12-04-2009, 06:38 AM
And this, my friends, brings us back full circle to Pete's thread about his recent visit.

buckt
12-04-2009, 06:41 AM
And this, my friends, brings us back full circle to Pete's thread about his recent visit.

EXACTLY!! When I read his post it was like looking forward 20 year from now here in Edmond. I want to scream, "make them stop! make them stop!"

Steve
12-04-2009, 06:43 AM
So.... what are YOU prepared to do about it?

buckt
12-04-2009, 06:47 AM
So.... what are YOU prepared to do about it?

Great question. After watching some of the proceedings from our last apartment fight -seems like you'd have better luck smashing your head against the wall instead of using logic and reason with the planning commission. Sad and frustrating to say the least....

Pete
12-04-2009, 07:06 AM
During my last visit, I stayed in Oak Tree so I ended up driving through Edmond (and the area west) quite a bit.

Although we love to point to that community as just about the best OKC has to offer in many ways, it's starting to show many of the same probems as NW OKC.

Lots of nearly-vacant retail buildings that are starting to look pretty shabby. And of course, there still tons of new space being built just about everywhere you turn.

I don't mean to be overly harsh but the majority of Broadway is an eyesore: car lots, fast food and lousy looking retail.


In retrospect, I wish I had done a photo pictorial while I was in town because someone needs to document what is going on in images and graphics -- people in those areas are way too desensitized but no one seems to notice or do anything about this.

It would also play into MAPS and how we combine those projects with better planning to start changing the way OKC and the surrounding areas are developed.

kevinpate
12-04-2009, 07:36 AM
Not my town, but who appoints/employs your planning commission folks?
Maybe that's a place where change should start if you're majorly not happy.
Seen it happen down here, and given the rancor of recent weeks, there's a fair chance of seeing a a noticeable uptick in challenges in OKC come spring.

FritterGirl
12-04-2009, 08:15 AM
Hey bukt,

Am I assuming you mean Edmond proper, or the no-man's land area just outside of Edmond City limits. I wasn't quite clear and this is in the OKC thread.

As for "fighting" it, yeah. Waste of time. You can get some things CHANGED on the proposed plans through fighting, but my understanding and experience is that many of these deals are already well in place before the planning commissions vote on them.

khook
12-04-2009, 11:32 AM
The development of retail going into new areas further and further out from the established nieghborhoods, will continue in any community as long as there is a mentality of building new.... it's cheaper to develop on raw land that existing built environments.

Therefore you get existing developments falling out of favor not being redeveloped and falling into disrepair.

But if the real cost of development - (road improvement, utility extensions, public works employees, etc.) was really paid for by the developer instead of having the cities involved picking up the infrastructure cost, then redevelopment would be on an equal footing and you would see more examination of redevelopment as opposed to development.

PLANSIT
12-04-2009, 12:16 PM
So, Apartments = Bad for community?

Midtowner
12-04-2009, 01:14 PM
So, Apartments = Bad for community?

Section 8 apartments next to 300K houses are bad for the community. Yes.

Spartan
12-04-2009, 01:31 PM
EXACTLY!! When I read his post it was like looking forward 20 year from now here in Edmond. I want to scream, "make them stop! make them stop!"

The problem is with the nature of suburbs, unfortunately. Edmond is doomed to its pending demise unless it can usher in a new era of sustainable growth, but I doubt it. Suburban growth is typically "sprawl" -- barren cookie cutter development wasteland devoid of any redeeming qualities after 20/30 years.

That's why MAPS 3 and the urban revitalization of OKC are so vital. This isn't about the now, it's about the future. I'm not saying Edmond is on the down and out, hardly. Edmond is still a shiny, new, sparkling community with the best in gated community technology. But it will happen. There will come a day when (gasp) an Edmond address aint no big thing.

And even though I expressed my doubts, I have hope that Edmond can turn it around. Now that they're getting very close to 100,000 residents, they're getting to be big-time. Look at what many Dallas suburbs did once they hit that threshold, i.e. Frisco and esp PLANO. Is Edmond going to become the next Plano, or will it continue down the path of worthless sprawl and become the next Arlington? And let me tell you, a Plano address is much better than an Arlington address, especially in Dallas (which I'd say is 20-30 years ahead of OKC).

jbrown84
12-04-2009, 01:41 PM
Edmond and OKC need to do something about this.

PLANSIT
12-04-2009, 01:42 PM
Section 8 apartments next to 300K houses are bad for the community. Yes.

So, Edmond is beyond (too good for) Section 8 or any other low income housing?

Of Sound Mind
12-04-2009, 02:10 PM
So, Edmond is beyond (too good for) Section 8 or any other low income housing?
No. There's plenty of it in Edmond. I happen to live near some of them. I generally don't have blanket objections to Section 8 housing, except that there is apparently little incentive for the owners and management of that housing to keep them in good order.

I do think it's a problem to build such disparate housing in such close proximity to MUCH more expensive homes, automatically devaluing them for no good reason when there are viable alternatives elsewhere.

I generally do not like the NIMBY crowds and Edmond has a disproportionate share of them. However, I agree with them on this issue 100%.

PLANSIT
12-04-2009, 02:37 PM
No. There's plenty of it in Edmond. I happen to live near some of them. I generally don't have blanket objections to Section 8 housing, except that there is apparently little incentive for the owners and management of that housing to keep them in good order.

I do think it's a problem to build such disparate housing in such close proximity to MUCH more expensive homes, automatically devaluing them for no good reason when there are viable alternatives elsewhere.

I generally do not like the NIMBY crowds and Edmond has a disproportionate share of them. However, I agree with them on this issue 100%.

So, the answer is to put them (lower income) into less desirable areas away from those that are well off, thus clustering them all into one blighted area, creating an environment where crime and complacency thrive?

LordGerald
12-04-2009, 02:43 PM
So, the answer is to put them (lower income) into less desirable areas away from those that are well off, thus clustering them all into one blighted area, creating an environment where crime and complacency thrive?

Eric Cartman: "Poor people tend to live in clusters."

MGE1977
12-04-2009, 02:48 PM
So, the answer is to put them (lower income) into less desirable areas away from those that are well off, thus clustering them all into one blighted area, creating an environment where crime and complacency thrive?


And again, back to Peter's comments in another post as to how bad things are getting everywhere.

Nobody wants their "ghettos." It just seems really egotistical, really snobby. Everybody chases tier II status, nobody wants what comes with it. I guess diversity is just talk for people who live in valued properties, gives them all something to shake their heads about.

Midtowner
12-04-2009, 02:53 PM
So, Edmond is beyond (too good for) Section 8 or any other low income housing?

Some parts are, some parts aren't. From a city planning perspective, putting Section 8 housing out by (for example) Coffee Creek didn't make a whole lot of sense. There are other parts of Edmond where another Section 8 housing project wouldn't make a whole lot of difference (anywhere near the Bryant Apartments, for example).

For one thing, folks paid a lot of money to move to an area with nice houses, low crime and good schools Section 8 types detract from all of those things.

From the city's and county's perspective, the proximity of Section 8 will decrease real estate values, thus decreasing (over time) revenues from ad valorem tax collections.

It's not about being elitist. Clearly, it'd be hard to put me in that camp as I for several years resided with no issue right across the street from the County Jail. It's about allowing people who pay a premium for a certain lifestyle to realize the benefits of their investment. There's nothing elitist or immoral about that at all.

MGE1977
12-04-2009, 03:11 PM
Some parts are, some parts aren't. From a city planning perspective, putting Section 8 housing out by (for example) Coffee Creek didn't make a whole lot of sense. There are other parts of Edmond where another Section 8 housing project wouldn't make a whole lot of difference (anywhere near the Bryant Apartments, for example).

For one thing, folks paid a lot of money to move to an area with nice houses, low crime and good schools Section 8 types detract from all of those things.

From the city's and county's perspective, the proximity of Section 8 will decrease real estate values, thus decreasing (over time) revenues from ad valorem tax collections.

It's not about being elitist. Clearly, it'd be hard to put me in that camp as I for several years resided with no issue right across the street from the County Jail. It's about allowing people who pay a premium for a certain lifestyle to realize the benefits of their investment. There's nothing elitist or immoral about that at all.

Right, but if one needed section 8 housing, a new, clean one wherever would beat the ones inner city. They got a right to dream bit too. Our investment be damned. Everyone wants immunity, I payed more, I'm worth more. Raise the gates, light the moat.

PLANSIT
12-04-2009, 03:47 PM
Some parts are, some parts aren't. From a city planning perspective, putting Section 8 housing out by (for example) Coffee Creek didn't make a whole lot of sense. There are other parts of Edmond where another Section 8 housing project wouldn't make a whole lot of difference (anywhere near the Bryant Apartments, for example).

For one thing, folks paid a lot of money to move to an area with nice houses, low crime and good schools Section 8 types detract from all of those things.

Only because over time, we (society, planners) have allowed and regulated for, separate uses, both types (residential, commercial) and classes (rich, poor).



From the city's and county's perspective, the proximity of Section 8 will decrease real estate values, thus decreasing (over time) revenues from ad valorem tax collections.

But these people have to live somewhere, and I'm willing to bet that they too pay property taxes (indirectly or not). So, incidentally, what we've created is area 'A' (richers) where property tax revenue is increasing and area 'B' (poor folks) where property tax revenue is decreasing. Sure, area 'A' is increasing (raw revenue) faster than area 'B' is decreasing, but now area 'B' is so blighted that is spawns crime and hopelessness - rarely does it ever get better. Why not, from the beginning, mix these class uses? If we, through proper planning, allowed for geographically ubiquitous low income housing, clustering would be mitigated.



It's not about being elitist. Clearly, it'd be hard to put me in that camp as I for several years resided with no issue right across the street from the County Jail. It's about allowing people who pay a premium for a certain lifestyle to realize the benefits of their investment. There's nothing elitist or immoral about that at all.

So, it's the city planner's obligation to make sure tax revenue increases at the expense of community, diversification, quality of life, etc?

PLANSIT
12-04-2009, 04:11 PM
BTW, I'm an idealist. I just tend to think that there are alternatives to the way we have chosen to build/expand. But as a society we have pissed away those opportunities for our "investments".

Of Sound Mind
12-04-2009, 04:22 PM
So, the answer is to put them (lower income) into less desirable areas away from those that are well off, thus clustering them all into one blighted area, creating an environment where crime and complacency thrive?
As someone who has lived in Section 8 housing in my early life and still lives adjacent to Section 8 housing, I do not advocate "clustering them all into one blighted area." However, I have no problem with allowing Section 8 housing in some areas of a city and not in others based on the reasons I previously stated as well as those Midtowner stated. They certainly are not "clustered all in one blighted area" in Edmond.

lasomeday
12-04-2009, 04:53 PM
Section 8 or low income housing should be where the people can walk to work. They shouldn't be far away from the jobs. They need to have the low income housing so they people won't have other expenses like a car.

PennyQuilts
12-04-2009, 05:04 PM
I have had a lot of my guardian ad litem families who use Section 8 housing. It always struck me as odd that some were in nice places with tenants who took good care of them but most were in awful places and they frequently lived like animals. Most (not all) of the ones in nice areas kept their homes clean and took care of the place. If they hadn't told me, I would not have guessed they were on public assistance because they were doing everything "right," to employ a useful term. Others would be in slummy areas with busted out windows, carpet pulled up (usually because a pit destroyed it), the front yard littered with crap, a doorbell that was oily and black with dirt, and the gutters full of leaves that no one thought to clean. I don't know if it was because the ones in the nicer neighborhoods took the effort to find nicer neighborhoods because it was personally important to them, or if the surrounding neighborhood was so influential that they tended to alter their personal habits to what was around them. I suspect it was a bit of both.

MGE1977
12-04-2009, 05:27 PM
Section 8 or low income housing should be where the people can walk to work. They shouldn't be far away from the jobs. They need to have the low income housing so they people won't have other expenses like a car.


Yah, and they should only get to wear approved low income apparel. And we should paint their ears pink so as to find them more quickly in a crowd. And enough of the Cheeze already, isn't 4 1/4 lbs. enough, do they really need five? Yah, and on Wednesdays they should come out to the gated communities to bow and give pennance. Yah! Yah! Yah?

Intent or no, that was a remarkable statement lasomeday.

kevinpate
12-04-2009, 05:33 PM
Section 8 or low income housing should be where the people can walk to work. They shouldn't be far away from the jobs. They need to have the low income housing so they people won't have other expenses like a car.

Maybe they should only get to build Sec. 8 housing on top of the 7-11's, fast foodie shoppes, and car washes?

SHEEESH

Bunty
12-04-2009, 05:45 PM
Okay. Normally I'm a pretty calm guy..very few things really get me pissed. But what I am seeing take place in buildings in Edmond through the approval of the Planning Commission is making me insane. We are saturated with a zillion square feet of empty retail space. More and more apartments are being planned and built. It appears as though the planning commission totally ignore looking at the history of towns where too much retail space and apartments are the beginning of the end for communities. Need proof? Just look at many areas of OKC and you will see where planning commissions have permitted a saturation of retail/apartments and those places are empty and property values plumment. I'm about the grab the Edmond Planning Commission by the ear and give them a personal tour of the blighted areas of OKC and show them what we can expect in Edmond unless they start thinking beyond their nose! Arrggghh.....

So was the Edmond Planning Commission room packed with people in opposition? In Stillwater, after 2 or 3 years of heavy opposition to a planned muliti-story apartment complex for college students to be bulit in a R-1 zone, the company has apparently given up after two nixes by the City Council. Citizens who don't want something new better prove it by packing rooms where rezoning proposals and proposed massive developments are being discussed.

PennyQuilts
12-04-2009, 05:46 PM
Section 8 or low income housing should be where the people can walk to work. They shouldn't be far away from the jobs. They need to have the low income housing so they people won't have other expenses like a car.

I am not sure why some have piled on to this comment. It is the sort of practical consideration any of us would do if we didn't have private transportation. I didn't take it that lasomeday was trying to lock people up in slums or anything. I am not sure how practical the notion is given the program but I understand the reasoning.

lasomeday
12-04-2009, 07:13 PM
MGE1977 and Kevinpate

Take a few planning classes and then get back with me.

It is basically good planning. They can spend less on gas and more on food for their families. They can also spend more time with their families.

Why would you build Section 8 apartments 5 miles from businesses instead of across the street? That is bad planning! That is why we are having this discussion! I am not saying they have to be in the slums, but they could be closer to downtown or near jobs. This is how cities should be built. People should be close to their jobs! It keeps from having unneeded sprawl.

I know they built section 8 housing between Yukon and Mustang and it is miles from anything. It doesn't make sense. They have to drive 8 to 10 miles to a job.

bluedogok
12-04-2009, 07:50 PM
There are "jobs" all over the city, they are not clustered in one location...of course that is another discussion about "mass centralization"...

LakeEffect
12-04-2009, 09:10 PM
How did a note about bad commercial development turn into a discussion on Section 8 housing?

Back to the original point - the focus of Planning Commission is not related to design, or use. A Planning Commission cannot block private enterprise from developing strip centers, nor can they determine design (unless it's a PUD). Planning Commission is specifically related to land use and zoning. The real meat of the problem lies with the zoning code itself, which is devised by staff, recommended by Planning Commission, and adopted by City Council.

If the zoning code allows such design and development, it will occur. It's obvious that the developers continue to believe that strip malls are desired. However, instead of redeveloping, they choose to keep moving out. In a system where the developers are out to maximize profit, the maximum profit will be out in green-field, suburban areas where the higher-income people are, and land is cheap. Therefore, we keep getting new strip malls developing along with the far-flung housing. The further out the population goes, and the less dense it gets, the more the existing strip malls will fail...

The big questions are: how do you regulate strip mall design, and how do you change the current development mode to encourage redevelopment instead of suburban, green field development?

Midtowner
12-04-2009, 09:36 PM
Right, but if one needed section 8 housing, a new, clean one wherever would beat the ones inner city. They got a right to dream bit too. Our investment be damned. Everyone wants immunity, I payed more, I'm worth more. Raise the gates, light the moat.

If you're not a communist, then yes, if you can pay more, you are worth more. That doesn't seem that harsh to me, but it might sound that way to you. Those who can pay more either had parents who cared enough to take care of them or they've worked their butts off. Either way, a high net worth should equate to a better life. Sorry if that offends you.

MGE1977
12-05-2009, 07:06 AM
If you're not a communist, then yes, if you can pay more, you are worth more. That doesn't seem that harsh to me, but it might sound that way to you. Those who can pay more either had parents who cared enough to take care of them or they've worked their butts off. Either way, a high net worth should equate to a better life. Sorry if that offends you.

This is my point. It seems that a lot of posters are so concerned with deplorable okc and then deplorable edmond, and then eventually deplorable USA. C'mon.

I'm not a bleeding heart, far from it. It seems so funny to me that these people who fled to the suburbs, (as I admittedly have), to get away from the conditions, whine about a section 8 family doing the same.

Yes, having more money, and stuff makes your net more, but all that can be done is to build your walls higher and insulate your home more to isolate yourself from the poor decisions of others.

The notion of centralizing certain populations so that one's property value remains intact or complaining of a blight in areas of town far from savable seems silly. I am all for a free market, (not a communist), and willing to accept all the bad decisions that come with it. This isn't personal, the decline of communities, it is business. Some posters are acting as if they really have a right to demand more, to stunt someone else's decisions, it seems egocentric.

Personally I am aware of the circumstances that are causitive in success or failure in life. I accept that the unfortunate few that were born with no means, whether family position, or innate ability will founder. What I won't accept is the position that someone in the burbs is somehow personally responsible for keeping out the rif raf, or changing the face of a community because their daily commute is tarnished by their drive through.

PennyQuilts
12-05-2009, 07:16 AM
My impression is not so much that anyone has reached a point where they feel responsible to fix it. The topic has been raised and we we are now discussing it the way people tend to do. Anyone who doesn't think the topic should be discussed doesn't have to participate. We all have opinions on the subject and are welcome to share them.

Some of us, sadly, instead of contributing to the conversation simply keep repeating our opinion as if no one has heard it before. At a certain point, that amounts to simply screaming at everyone that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is...sily.

So okay then. I guess the rest of us need to simply nod and stop talking?

MGE1977
12-05-2009, 07:35 AM
My impression is not so much that anyone has reached a point where they feel responsible to fix it. The topic has been raised and we we are now discussing it the way people tend to do. Anyone who doesn't think the topic should be discussed doesn't have to participate. We all have opinions on the subject and are welcome to share them.

Some of us, sadly, instead of contributing to the conversation simply keep repeating our opinion as if no one has heard it before. At a certain point, that amounts to simply screaming at everyone that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is...sily.

So okay then. I guess the rest of us need to simply nod and stop talking?


I am writing.
I am contributing.
I am not "yessing."

Why is a differing opinion so sour to you?

I am not asking for people to stop posting what they see as their concerns, but I don't think I should be asked to stop asking them why they choose to fight what I feel are stupid fights.

I'm going to stop you before you claim that I just called someone stupid, or that I in turn disregard their position because mine stands contrary. Write what you want, then, instead of expecting soft garden party applause, know that just maybe someone will inject something in oppostition to the correspondence.

Penny Quilts, we can go at this all day, or you can let me be until you have something to change my mind, (preferably in the form of a valid argument), not another post yearning for the good old days when people could converse quietly and argument were for the dregs.

PennyQuilts
12-05-2009, 08:25 AM
Penny Quilts, we can go at this all day, or you can let me be until you have something to change my mind, (preferably in the form of a valid argument), not another post yearning for the good old days when people could converse quietly and argument were for the dregs.

What a troll. Calling for civility brings it out in you. Who said anything about the good old days? How about you stick to the post instead of dragging in your own baggage and reading between the lines?

OKCisOK4me
12-05-2009, 08:57 AM
I grew up in Edmond. I don't think anybody wants to change the heart of Edmond, therefore its always going to look old school (south of 2nd between Broadway & Boulevard all the way down to 9th St.).

Yes, they added the Jazz Lab & a few other new buildings but I doubt they'll really change the core anytime soon.

It may be cheaper to build on new land but looking at it from a simple man's point of view, I figured the suburban sprawl was due to issues of laziness. Or it could just be competition. Getting more people to go to these locations versus those locations. Isn't that better in the long run? Once the economy heals over?

As far as the Section 8 housing goes...man, once again, I lived in Edmond. I never really had that mentality of "I'm above all" but I've seen it in Edmond. Yes, Edmond residents overall are too good (noses held high) to have that ghetto-ness & filth around them. Their unspoken complaint is that it brings in too much crime. If you want to reraise the value of your homes, have police officers move in to the neighborhood...

MGE1977
12-05-2009, 09:54 AM
What a troll. Calling for civility brings it out in you. Who said anything about the good old days? How about you stick to the post instead of dragging in your own baggage and reading between the lines?

"What a troll" and then a reference to civility. Listen, like I said, you can beat this drum all day long and the only thing you're gonna get is a tired arm and your same old beat.

I'll continue to respond until you go back to the issue, stop refereeing. I've tried to speak to the issue from my point of view, and have been largely fought, and fought fairly. I'm not griping, get thicker skin.

flintysooner
12-05-2009, 10:02 AM
How did a note about bad commercial development turn into a discussion on Section 8 housing?

Back to the original point - the focus of Planning Commission is not related to design, or use. A Planning Commission cannot block private enterprise from developing strip centers, nor can they determine design (unless it's a PUD). Planning Commission is specifically related to land use and zoning. The real meat of the problem lies with the zoning code itself, which is devised by staff, recommended by Planning Commission, and adopted by City Council.

If the zoning code allows such design and development, it will occur. It's obvious that the developers continue to believe that strip malls are desired. However, instead of redeveloping, they choose to keep moving out. In a system where the developers are out to maximize profit, the maximum profit will be out in green-field, suburban areas where the higher-income people are, and land is cheap. Therefore, we keep getting new strip malls developing along with the far-flung housing. The further out the population goes, and the less dense it gets, the more the existing strip malls will fail...

The big questions are: how do you regulate strip mall design, and how do you change the current development mode to encourage redevelopment instead of suburban, green field development?Good points in this post. I think in Edmond there is a "comprehensive plan" and other communities use other names for their long term development plans. These are visionary but I think they are very important. This is a great place for many of us to participate in planning for the future development of our community.

Once a visionary plan is produced it does take a good deal of fortitude to hold fast to it. In many cases it is very difficult to find ways to encourage development to proceed that way, too. And the opposition sometimes comes from some surprising sources.

PennyQuilts
12-05-2009, 10:13 AM
"What a troll" and then a reference to civility. Listen, like I said, you can beat this drum all day long and the only thing you're gonna get is a tired arm and your same old beat.

I'll continue to respond until you go back to the issue, stop refereeing. I've tried to speak to the issue from my point of view, and have been largely fought, and fought fairly. I'm not griping, get thicker skin.

Hahaha, pot. Okie dokey.

USG '60
12-05-2009, 10:52 AM
Speaking of Edmonds core district, what is ever going to happen with the behemouth across the street west of the Jazz Lab bldg?

jbrown84
12-05-2009, 11:55 AM
I am not sure why some have piled on to this comment. It is the sort of practical consideration any of us would do if we didn't have private transportation. I didn't take it that lasomeday was trying to lock people up in slums or anything. I am not sure how practical the notion is given the program but I understand the reasoning.

I thought it was a good idea as well, someday.

jbrown84
12-05-2009, 12:01 PM
Speaking of Edmonds core district, what is ever going to happen with the behemouth across the street west of the Jazz Lab bldg?

Has that not ever been finished? Haven't been by there in a couple years.

Platemaker
12-16-2009, 07:52 AM
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.