lurkette

I wrote in my journal that a developer wants to build townhomes and condos on the land right behind our house, land that is currently forested. Grrrr. It's currently zoned for single-family homes, and he's going to have to get it re-zoned to build his current plan on it. Some of the other homeowners are concerned about this development, that it will bring down the value of our houses, and increase traffic around us. I'm willing to take their word for it. They'd prefer to have single family homes. I'd prefer that the developer find himself suddenly overcome by a love for nature and make the whole place into a preserve for deer and woodpeckers.

AAAAUGH!! My bats live in those trees. No more bats. I love those bats, watching them dart around at twilight. Hrumph.

Back to the subject at hand...

Anybody have any experience protesting a re-zoning? What kind of information will the city council be looking for? What sorts of arguments are likely to sway them?

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

tinfoil

AFAIK, all you need to do is form a group of concerned citizens that are against this plan. This group needs to be present at the re-zoning meeting to voice its concerns. This meeting SHOULD be open to the public and (around here) the person requesting the re-zoning has to put a notice on the property as well. There should also be an announcement in the local paper.

However, that's in Canada. I don't know what it would be 'somewhere between here and there'.

__________________
Get off your fuckin cross. We need the fuckin space to nail the next fool martyr.

Rodney

It's basically the same idea in the states as Tinfoil presents in Canada. Organize a group of concerned citizens from your neighborhood, and make alliances with similar organizations in other neighborhoods.

As far the argument it takes the sway the city council, a roomful of angry shouting people goes a long way, no matter how good their argument. There's actually no right or wrong in zoning; it's just politics. Make sure that the city council knows _in advance_ that there are a lot of angry people, even before it goes to the planning commission. They'll pass their concerns along to the planning department and planning commission, which both have to make recommendations. If anybody has any contacts within the political establishment, use them to find out who to influence and whether the developer has any particular influence (ie, is he somebody's buddy or is he paying somebody off).

Get a petition together with a lot of names. Meet with planners with a long list of concerns that must be addressed: traffic, pollution, child safety, blocked sight lines (decreases property values). Make sure the newspaper knows about it. When the planning commission meets, raise a ruckus and get in the paper. When the city council meets, make sure once again to have met with city councilmen privately in advance (separately), and mob the chamber. If you can't fill the chamber, make lots of noise. Everybody speak; keep them there until 3 in the morning.

Honest to God, this should probably do it unless the local govt's out-and-out corrupt and the developer has them in his pocket. It works all the time around here. You probably can't succeed in keeping the parcel from being developed, but you can keep the development less dense.

Actually, one other thought. Really the only way to keep the lot entirely undeveloped is to hire somebody to go out there and find an endangered species. The Western Blue-Throated Regurgitator, the Wisconsin Purple Stink Flower, whatever. If you could do that, the developer's ass is grass. But I wouldn't count on it.

LewisCouch

The advice presented prior to this post is very good, however, I'm curious about the surrounding neighborhoods. For instance: are most of the dwellings single family or apartment compexes? Look around you, if you find that there is a preponderance of aparment buildings in your area, then this would indicate high density zoning. The issue is one of inundation that requires adequate traffic flow, emergency services, etc. and there are standards that must be upheld. This could be a factor in you and your neighbors favor. This happened to me a couple of years ago when a developer decided to build a dozen two story duplexes three doors down from my nice dead end street. In this case, it required a new street to be constructed and this turned out to be the Achilles heel. He needed a variance because the setback was not enough. After we neighbors protested, the variance was denied and as a result, there was about an 18 month delay in construction. When he finally did begin construction, he was only allowed to build six one story duplexes. The number was pared down because of traffic requirements. He was forced to build a more narrow thoroughfare which was designated as a "lane". Since a "lane" allows for less traffic than a "street", then fewer buildings could be constructed.

Also, after having been notified by mail of the rezoning request, I was able to obtain a set of the proposed plans at city hall. Definitely get a set if you are able.

Good luck.

__________________
"The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk."

-- Massimo d'Azeglio

clavus

Are any of your bats classified as "threatened" or "endangered"?

Maybe these guys can steer you in the right direction - http://www.batcon.org/

Lurkette's love of bats and woodpeckers is the final straw. It confirmend what I had long suspected. I'd just like to go on the record right now and say that lurkette is the single coolest person on the TFP.

__________________
Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

clavus

OO! OO! Another idea. Start constructing some bat-friendly housing now. Maybe you can keep your bats from becomming homeless.

Just outside of Sacramento, there was a big ol' bridge that needed replacing. It held a large colony of bats. People who cared pointed this out. They got the local farmers on their side (bats eat bugs that eat crops). Once the dust settled, there was a new bridge - designed specifically to house bats within its frame.

__________________
Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

Cynthetiq

in today's economy... it may be futile... if it's jobs and more taxes... that holy $ may just win...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Rodney

Not necessarily. Construction jobs aren't permanent, so they're not really as politically holy. Now if the developers were building a shopping mall or office complex, that might be another matter.

As for the tax advantage, it depends on the area. Here in California, we have Prop 13 which limits the amount of annual property tax increase to, in the long run, less than the rate of inflation. So new residential developments don't necessarily generate enough taxes to pay for the services they require, necessitating heavy "development fees" up front from the city to at least mitigate the costs for a few years. In such a situation, the lower-density development would actually be preferable to the city, because it would probably require less police and fire service, fewer additional classrooms, etc. (Commercial developments are considered okay, because they add new jobs but not necessarily new citizens, and also can generate sales tax revenue.)

lurkette

Great idea - I'll start putting up bat houses and bird houses to shelter the poor, displaced critters. Sigh. People suck sometimes.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Cynthetiq

maybe you can do it as a non profit organization and get donations from your neighbors... and maybe it will also get you some TV time on the local news and paper.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Redlemon

Semi-OT, but I've noticed that housing developments are almost always named after whatever they had to remove in order to build it. Based on that, I'm trying to figure out the name of these condos: "Bat Glades"?

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Redlemon

That's happening in my area as well. My town is actually purchasing open space, since it is more cost effective than the impact on town services.

Additionally: how have the recent P&Z decisions gone? You might be able to find this out most easily by contacting your local newspaper to talk to the person who covers the P&Z beat. Contacting the newspaper is always a good idea, especially if you have put a citizen's group together.

"I see a lot of zoning going on, but very little in the way of planning."

Randerolf

There are a lot of great suggestions here.

Zoning is 90% politics. It people are angry enough, the zoning board/ city council etc etc won't let it go through.

A search of the internet will help you.

Another sugestion would be to write a letter to the Editor of the local paper. They love that stuff especially if its a small paper. It's great free publicity for your cause.

Good luck!

Redlemon

OK, I thought of one more. The "vernal pool" is a killer of many development projects in my area. Vernal pools are only filled with water at certain times of the year, but are crucial for breeding of certain species. A wetlands expert would be able to identify them for you.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

BonesCPA

Great thought, but a true non-profit organiztion (501(c)(3)) takes more money and time than you would think. A formally recognized charity takes upwards of $3000 to form, file, etc. plus annual tax returns, etc. Many "funds" (help died on the job fire fighter's children fund and the like) are not formal charities and have essential flown under the radar based on their size.

My recommendation ties into others suggestions of getting a citizens group together and giving the builders a hard time. You won't stop them (most likely), but you can force them to give you concessions - a bat sanctuary, limitations on number/size of units, mandatory green spaces, etc. If you don't speak up, no one will hear you.

__________________
Back into hibernation.

hahaha

I've had some problems with this in the past. The 140+ acres of land behind my house was annexed from out township to our neighboring city, and zoned for an industrial park. Luckily, the owner ran out of money and development has been slow. One thing I would look into if you have been using the land is emminent domain. Someone I know almost lost land because if it, and if you chose to bring it up in court, they will have to fight it. Basically, the law aroung here says if you have been using the land for a decent amount of time, and the owners havent, it can be given to you. I dont agree with the law at all, but your case would be an exception.

__________________
"find what's good and make it last"
-Bouncing Souls

onetime2

I wish you luck in preserving this but it always gets me that people suddenly become outraged that this happens. Unless you (or some sort of conservancy) owns the land you enjoy so much it's not safe from development. Why do people wait until it's almost too late to do something about it?

This happens all the time. People move into an area (or grow up in an area, whatever) and love it because of the great views, the excellent trails, etc, and they just assume it's there for them and always will be (not saying this is you lurkette, just a general statement about other situations). Then someone comes along that wants to do something with it. All of a sudden that developer is the big evil guy.

We had a piece of land in the town where I grew up that was an oil distribution facility. Not a big piece of property, right alongside some train tracks, and it only had one small tank on it. It was for sale my entire youth (20+ years). No one was interested even though it was right in the center of town. They announced a few years ago that they would start some limited passenger service along those tracks (previously only used for freight trains twice a day) and that they would turn that piece of property into a train station. The neighbors were outraged. My god, they're going to ruin our community. Big legal battles, big PR fights, etc. It all could have been avoided if someone had just bought the damn property in the past.

Sorry, if I'm hijacking the thread a bit. I really do wish you luck in preserving it but just wish others out there would look around their own towns and if there's something that they want preserved, work with the nature conservancies, the open space commissions, private individuals, etc to save it before it becomes an issue. It will be cheaper, it'll be easier, it'll be better for everyone.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

lurkette

Onetime2, I'm not (primarily) interested in preserving the land - that was someone else's suggestion. I realize it's not my land, and all of us on this street have known it would be developed some day. I'm a little chagrined about the loss of habitat, but we'll see if we can do something about that - building bird and bat houses, etc.

My question was about fighting a rezoning from single-family housing to high-density housing. The land is currently zoned for single family housing. The developer wants to build condos and townhomes, which I'm afraid would be far less expensive than our houses and therefore bring down our property value. I'm afraid it's just as callous as that. We'll see what the actual plans look like this Thursday - maybe they'll be comparable homes, even as townhomes and condos - and decide after that if we want to fight the rezoning. We don't think the developer's evil - it's his land and he has a right to do with it what he wants. But we have a right to protect our property values within the law - like fighting a rezoning if we think it's going to be detrimental to the neighborhood.

And it's all fine and good to say "buy the land" - don't you think that occurred to us already? We would have if we could have afforded to. But nobody wanted to sell us just the bit behind our lot, and not everyone on the street wanted to pitch in to buy the whole strip and divvy it up, and none of us could afford to buy the whole strip.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

jwoody

Under British law, if you disturb a bat in it's habitat you can be fined upto £5000 and possibly end up in prison, even if you own the land or the building the bats are inhabiting.

Are there no similar laws in your area?

__________________
.

onetime2

I understand that lurkette, it was just a general bitch about similar situations. The land was obviously going to be developed at some point and unless you own the land it could end up beind anything, if it suits the town's purpose. That's all I was saying.

BonesCPA

In my area they have been putting up townhouses, and they are charging more than single homes. "Nice" single homes from $250-350k and a new townhouse development all at $350k+. Never understand it. So it may not bring down prices, especially if they go higher end.

Oh, and btw, why do they call them townhouses. We used to call them row homes. Shows what a name change does to the price.
/rant
/rhetorical

__________________
Back into hibernation.

dragonhawk

One of the ways to is to force them to do a traffic study.
If nothing else, it could stall while the city has to think about new roads, stop lights, etc.

It's more dangerous for kids in the neighborhood too.

Shame it's not a old Indian burial ground or historic place...

Get the local newspaper involved.

And the "endangerd" bats is probably a really good way to stop it.
Our neighbor was gone for a few weeks, and when she came back she had a lot of bats in her attic. She had to pay big bucks to have people come out and catch them and move them. They are protected here and you can't kill them.

__________________
----------------------------------------------
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

ratbastid

There actually is an old cemetary back in those woods somewhere. We found it on a county survey map. It's well back from the area they'll be developing, though.

Hey, lurkette--maybe we should put on our b00ts and go tromping back there looking for that this weekend!

Rodney

Here's where we may part ways, Lurkette. High density housing -- townhomes, condos, and such -- are both more affordable and less wasteful of water and land. Which is a good thing in places where 1) housing prices have gotten so high that only the upper-middle class can afford to buy a conventional detached home, 2) land for additional homebuilding is scarce or expensive, or 3) water is in short supply (those big lawns, y'know).

I live in an area where all three factors apply. There was a real housing price hike about six years ago, and the most a working class family or civil servant could afford around here now -- and by "around here," I mean for at least 40 miles in any direction -- would be a condo. Capitalism's capitalism, but when a housing in a community is too expensive for the cops who police it or the teachers who teach it or the the mechanics and roofers who fix it or the cooks or waiters who feed it, then you've got a sick community. Higher-density housing is the answer.

If the development is truly bad, you should oppose it or make it better. But if there is a housing shortage in your community, I urge you to keep an open mind on behalf of hardworking people who live in your community and want to own their piece of it just as you do, but are less fortunate.

Cynthetiq

Rodney,

Here in the North East they have been making high density housing selling for 350k -450k and making them all assisted living and senior communities. The people are selling their houses for 450k and moving into these high density housing.

As a newlywed couple we are not able to afford to purchase anything along those lines and have a reasonable commute into work. In fact we were lucky to find something in NYC to buy an apartment for 250k...even in NYC my mother in law a true starving artist never was able to qualify for low income housing a requirement in all new buildings in NYC since the 80s.

As far as I'm concerned all the politicos and developers all know what they are doing. They are making money.. not making affordable houseing.

The Palisades in NJ is a beautiful coastline to Hudson River, viewed from the NY side. The Rockefellers didn't want their view spoiled, so they purchased that land and made sure that no one was able to develop on it. That's the only real solution ever.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

lurkette

Gah. You had to go and pour lemon juice on the papercut, didn't you?

You hit exactly on where my conscience has been uneasy about this. Ordinarily I'm all for high density housing - it's a good idea, for all the reasons you state, although in our particular situation it's going to be increasing traffic and school crowding problems. Anyhow, I hate that just because it might affect me and my property values I am contemplating fighting it. I don't want to be one of those "NIMBY" (not in my back yard) people.

It so happens that there is not a housing shortage in our area - in fact, property values have been dropping on their own due to overbuilding. Now, affordable housing is another issue - like most places, property values skyrocketed in the 90s to unreal levels, making housing unaffordable for many laborers. We had an influx of people due to high tech jobs, which have now evaporated, and people are leaving again, leaving a glut of available housing, but at prices that reflect what the owners paid for them in the boom years.

Anyhow, it's complicated, and our neighbors are all bleeding heart liberals, too, so I'm sure we'll come up with some kind of solution that makes everyone happy. But I appreciate that you've made me think about something that has been bothering me anyhow.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Rodney

You must live in a college town :-). I do, too.

At any rate, I do want to say that high density housing can be so well-designed as to minimize its impact (except on schools and traffic, of course). I live in what's called an "infill development." A developer bought an very old house on a busy artery with a _very_ large and long back yard. Extended the driveway to the back of the property and built two cottages of moderate size on each side, founded a homeowner's assocation, and sold off the individual units. We have quite small lots but the development is attractive, prices were cheap (at the time), we're happy, and really nobody even knows we're back here except the post office and fire department and UPS. We don't even park on the street.