This. So much this. What Midtowner is saying is basically advocating for kicking the can down the road. Traffic is coming whether you like it or not. If Edmond doesn’t approve this another community down the road will and that will create more traffic on top of the soon to come single family housing which will be forced to drive and sit in it to receive goods and services.
Single family homes add to the ad valorem collections and supply customers to pay all of those sales taxes. I'm happy to see the City kick the can down the road until the right development comes along, i.e., something less dense, where property values are going to be high and they are going to hold their value. I see Liberty Park and its seems very similar to a Coffee Creek type development. What happens if those retail spots don't do as well as initially intended? What happens when the developer moves on and the community gets its very own marijuana dispendary and vape shop? What happens if someone buys the retail property and converts it to multifamily housing? HOA supported parks, trails, maybe swimming pools seem pretty safe and sustainable. I wouldn't take any long term bets on anything else.
This is always the big issue for me on a lot of the "super cool, oh so neat, exciting developments" that Edmond supposedly misses out on thanks to "nimbys". Developer promises of things like a movie theater and an out of market grocery might sound awesome, but they might not ever come through, and Edmond has TONS of open available retail space currently. I'm all for strong developments but I'm not eager for a giant empty development that will still be empty in a decade.What happens if those retail spots don't do as well as initially intended?
Exactly right. When we're talking about retail or a restaurant t the heart of a neighborhood... well.. I live in east Edmond and just got a mailer from Gaillardia Country Club--a pretty amazing feature in a pretty wealthy and self-contained neighborhood. They would not be sending flyers to East Edmond residents in (by their standards) tiny houses if they were well supported by their own residents.
So if Gaillardia Country Club is desperate for revenue, how is the little strip mall at the heart of your neighborhood going to make it? They're trying to be Carlton's Landing, but their retail will be competing with Edmond, not Eufaula.
All of these things can be addressed in the PUD. Many PUDs specifically restrict certain types of retail.
In the meantime you get cookie cutter buildings with drive thrus all around for things like Swig or Dutch Bros. Not saying those are bad but maybe its ok to let something a bit more ambitious get developed. And the empty storefront thing is always funny. Its like saying stop building any new homes because theres dozens of empty homes that arent selling.
I dont even know how you can compare country clubs to retail development.
And I'm fine with something ambitious - but I'm not over here rending my hair, gnashing my teeth, and flipping tables every single time a development gets opposed in Edmond like some people are. We have lots of cool developments going on, and some really neat areas being built out like the areas West of Downtown, the Stephenson Park area, etc. But a lot of projects that are listed upthread weren't ambitious unique developments - I mean, being upset that a Walmart was opposed? Or a random retail development on Covell? Even the Spring Creek stuff wasn't anything special IMO - it could have *potentially* evolved into something, but it also could have been a lot of empty space (there's plenty over there still now.) There's a middle ground where folks can see both sides, and not every single development has to be blindly supported, and even if good ones don't happen, that's not the end of the world. There is plenty of retail development happening in Edmond. Edmond's year over year sales tax revenues have continued to go up. It's not doom and gloom every time folks oppose a development.
Home developments get questioned all the time about this. I watch most of the planning/council meetings. A large neighborhood suddenly thrown up where there wasn't one does cause traffic concerns, wastewater and floodwater concerns, and more. And if there isn't a need or a demand for homes there, I don't think it should automatically be approved. This is also a reason I opposed developments like 18 on Park, which I didn't see as filling a need for anyone but the developers (getting to sell 18 overpriced lots on the space of 2) in the middle of one of the oldest and most desirable neighborhoods in Edmond. On the flip side I love developments like the Lark and the Silos, which are providing the infill in an area where it makes sense (walkable, local grocery and retail, etc). And of course, with new housing they're often not rezoning the land. Often times these developments are fought over the rezoning of land that was previously residential or single family. It's lower barrier to build housing on land already zoned for housing.
My issue is why is the new proposed neighborhood going to cause flood and traffic concerns when the protesting neighbor is unbothtered by their neighborhood contributing to flooding or traffic. Its like all new home development should stop as soon as the protester bought and moved into their home. I am not going to give any credence to the I was here first mentality, because someone was there before them and was impacted in some way by that new neighborhood.
I cant recall what or where exactly 18 on park is. But another issue I have is what you said about it. You say you dont see it filling a need for anyone, but is that really your call? If someone is spending their money to develop and build something, they probably have a good idea if theres an existing need for it. Basically, if you dont like it, dont buy it.
We don't live in a vacuum, and this isn't some libertarian paradise where folks can do whatever they want with land. Zoning laws exist for a reason, and people purchase and invest in land with the assumption that the surrounding land will be used in a certain way. If folks want to change the planned use for the land, then yes, it will often be an uphill battle. And the folks whose quality of life will be affected by the development absolutely have a right to have an opinion and express it.
My god, the way folks that any planned development is absolutely perfect, essential, and that Edmond will absolutely collapse if it doesn't approve every single hair brained development idea is absurd to the point of ridiculousness.
I see this argument on here a lot (typically from the same few folks) that somehow land ownerships is the end all of the discussion for the land use. That's not how communities and civilization work. If you want that, go out in the middle of unincorporated land and build something. Someone wanting to develop in a community is wanting something FROM that community. They want the benefits of being in the city, and they want the benefits of having the local populace support their development. That comes with tradeoffs.
Land is the single most important limited resource a city has - we can't create more (outside of expanding our boundaries and even that has limits) and once it's all used, that's it. That's why Edmond has long term development plans, zoning, and more. Buying a piece of land doesn't cede you absolute control over its use, nor should it.
Zoning should have limits and can go overboard. Edmonds a textbook definition of that.
Zoning is a set of planned limits on land use set by the city based on the city plan. When a landowner wants to build something /different/more than the zoning allows then the owner has to go though the Planned Urban Development process (PUD).
The PUD is a negotiation between the city and the land owner but in most cases should still conform to the city plan. The proposed PUD will have to be announced and posted on the land and the public will have input usually at both the planning commission and city council level. Special attention is paid to the wants of the nearby surrounding landowners/users of any proposed PUD.
Edmond definitely needs to raise the referendum bar a lot higher. Should need to pick up at least 20k signatures to place any land use question on a ballot.
Need to creatively grow and claim the Sales Tax to maintain that. As it stands now, with the growth to the north and out east, there’s only enough manpower to cover west of I-35 and south of Covell. Creative growth or status quo and limited tax revenue resulting in diminished city services?
Public Safety in Edmond is funded by Sales Tax not Property Tax. If the city keeps putting in cookie cutter residential areas that does nothing to boost sales tax outside of the increase of residents who in turn add to the workload for police and fire. You need the increase in retail to accompany that increase in residents and hopefully draw in shoppers from surrounding communities who are also using our Public Safety resources. The standardized shopping centers aren't going to provide that long term. We joke among the Public Safety staff we can only do so much with sales tax from combo gas station/vape shop/cellular repair centers. There needs to be a shot in the arm to boost those services especially with the growth we are seeing out east. Like I said, you only have one fire station at the moment to handle that side with Station 5 and the police department most of the time has no manpower to put even one officer east of the freeway.
Edmond has so much potential which would sustain itself and the level of services it provides. But there has to be a leap in the development area to actually maintain that otherwise wait times for calls will fall to those of surrounding areas; for example it taking several hours at times for an OCPD officer to get to a report call or fire being delayed on a medical call when the wait for EMSA will still be 30 for 45 minutes.
As to the other point, that retail style is unique and Edmond historically has always deemed itself unique. You would think the NIMBY's would embrace that but instead the lack of innovative approaches to development here has pretty much allowed the uniqueness to fade away as other communities took the risk and are reaping the rewards.
It would take a lot to convince me that some random development in the middle of a neighborhood is going to generate more sales tax revenue than a well developed and filled large shopping center at a major intersection located with easy access to the interstate. Edmond has had positive year over year sales tax growth pretty consistently, and we have plenty of available retail space that can be utilized. We do have some pretty cool developments going in the CBD as well. Outside of bringing in some new to the market business that would be a draw, as a whole I don't see a new development necessarily adding much to the tax revenues in Edmond (it's just moving dollars from one shopping center to another). Now, east of I-35 will absolutely need retails services to support the residents, but the East Edmond plan addresses that, and the goals will be the city center type of developments, which still won't be just planting multi-use in the middle of a neighborhood.
Not that this is what you are specifically referring to, but on a per acre or per sq ft basis it almost certainly will earn more. Lots of data backs this up, and in fact it is the entire focus of a planning consultant known as Urban3. They use some startling visualizations to demonstrate this. Their website is worth a visit, and there are quite a few interesting YouTube videos out there with their principal, Joe Minicozzi.
I was speaking more generally with respect to the general opposition to development unless it is a standard neighborhood or shopping center. Would this particular development make much of an impact? Probably not. But would a trend toward more unique developments possibly draw attention of higher end retail establishments thus providing a boost in collections? I would like to think so. If we as a community want to continue with the status quo, we won't grow in a way that draws attention and highlights our community. At 100,000 people and 100 sq. miles, we aren't a small city anymore and it's time to do some things differently growing forward.
The retail in the middle of a neighborhood shouldnt necessarily be thought of from a sales tax generator lens but also as an amenity and selling point for the residents. Lots of people would like to live somewhere they can safely and easily walk to get a coffee or meal. I really have no idea why anyone would be opposed to this Liberty Park. Different housing options is a good thing.
I think you are wrong on the simple new retail development not adding much to the city's coffers. Its definitely not some zero sum game. When a Lowes opens next to a Home Depot, many times that Home Depot hardly sees any decline in sales. You are always competing with other municipalities whether you think so or not. And lots of people come into Edmond to work and visit, its not just residents shopping and dining in town.
My point I guess is that there's not much difference between that home depot at a brand new development vs a home depot moving into a spot that's currently built and has available space, or in space that is currently zoned for retail. I'm generally supportive of new developments, and I like this Liberty Park development. But I also don't feel like it's a "must have" for Edmond and for our sales tax. I have no problem with folks who have an interest in the are voicing their opposition. I supported the Spring Creek expansion but I also can't argue with those who live near there and were motivated to oppose it. But at the end of the day I don't think that folks blocking a development really hurt our long term sales tax revenues. If the market is there the developer will find a way to get the Edmond and regional buyers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks