BusinessReport.com

Posted on December 14 at 11:03 a.m.

Three comments:
Mr. Ball - I disagree that density is a fair debate point. Spinosa hired some of the best and most experienced TND planners - they came up with the density. They know that too much density will not work, but also that with too little the whole thing begins to fall apart and we lose the environmental, community, and economic benefits a TND brings. Rouzan's overall density is on the low-end of density of comparable developments AND of our own TND ordinance! The number is well within the ordinance - why is this even an issue?!

Next, it is beyond me why a special committee is necessary and why Gladney is being praised. Gladney is an SCA board member and he and other board members have been fighting against Rouzan for over two years. Any concerned neighbor has had the opportunity to be negotiating with Spinosa since he first put up that huge sign with the contact info for JTS in 2005. What has happened to personal responsibility? There are many of us who have taken it upon ourselves to be meeting with JTS for over two years. If SCA had not wasted their two years insisting on A1 only and refusing to compromise, they could've been spending all that time working with Spinosa and we wouldn't be in this position today. It is only since they knew they would lose that they have decided it is time to negotiate (at the 11th hour). And their compromise offer is ludicrous. It again shows how the opponents do not understand what a TND is all about. And reading the comments above by opponents still shows me that the opponents do not understand the concept. It is not enough to know what the elements are, you need to understand why they are there and what they do.

Next - re Camm Morton. Camm Morton was a huge part of the Smart Growth Task Force so when Commercial Properties bought the old Wal-Mart site on Perkins a lot of us were very excited. That is until Camm presented his development plan - a typical strip mall with a restaurant at the front. And then he refused (at a public meeting with press there) to hold any charrettes with the neighborhood - tenet number 10 of the Smart Growth principles - ensure stakeholder involvement. He claimed they were a waste of time. Something to think about. At least he is no longer at the helm deciding what happens to that property. By the way, the SCA was not involved in trying to work with the developer on that project either, despite its implications for our neighborhood. SCA has so much potential for good . . .

Kudos to all you proponents out there who actually understand what this all about and understand the implications for the rest of our city.

Can anyone tell me why (given that the civic association reps on the committee do not represent all of the neighbors) that the Council has not allowed any neighborhood proponents to be on this "blue ribbon" committee? . . .

On What now?

Posted on December 5 at 10:05 a.m.

The statements of the Rouzan opponent interviewed above perfectly reflect those opinions of the opponent group that I have heard and read. They are a perfect example of the misinformation and lack of information the opponents seem to be working with. First, TNDs are not unproven concepts as many people posting to these articles have pointed out again and again. Second, I have heard so many opponents say they are "not against the TND concept" but against the "density, drainage problems and traffic" it will supposedly bring. However, if they truly understood the TND concept (as many claim they do)and planning procedures in general, they would understand that density does not equal traffic problems (separation of uses does) and that the TND is currently the only development option that can succesfully address these problems.

In addition, they would know that DPW and the city planners have already taken all of this into consideration and still have recommended approval for the zoning change. Why? Because they are the engineers and planners who understand how the numbers translate into reality and because the developer always has to address these problems in order to get a permit in the first place - no matter who is developing, where they are developing and what they are developing, not just for their development, but for any possible impact on existing development. This is basic development/planning procedure, true for any town or city with a DPW and developed planning office. They also FULLY understand the TND concept and how the principles involved address these problems. So, basically, while the SCA is proclaiming their war cry of "density, drainage, traffic" - the city already knows those arguments don't hold water. (No pun intended.)

Also, I've been wondering, if the SCA board can rally some of the neighbors to fight developments, and spend so much time and effort doing so, why haven't they done the same to get their sewage, drainage, and speeding problems we've been hearing so much about fixed?

On The battle over Rouzan

Posted on December 4 at 7:24 a.m.

Another way to attract and/or retain the Creative Class (and business) is by giving them the housing and lifestyle options they want. Bring on the TNDs. Go Rouzan!

On All in the family

Posted on November 14 at 9:11 a.m.

katowoman, I urge you take a ride out to River Ranch (and NO, I am not making a comparison to Rouzan) on a weekend. Park in the town square, walk around, eat lunch at the Village Market (closed on Sundays) or Cafe Roma, have coffee at CC's and then take a walk all around the neighborhood and see how naturally and nicely the densities spread out from most dense at the square to least dense further out by the river. If you are coming from Johnston down Camellia Boulevard, enter the portion of the development that will be on your right side, where the City Club and CCs (not the drive thru) and the square are. The side with the square is the oldest and most complete. Talk to the residents and ask them what they like and don't like. Talk to the MANY people from surrounding neighborhoods who visit RR all the time to take advantage of the amenities. You can usually find them at CC's for sure. Talk to people who know and experience this life every day. Again, I am not comparing Rouzan to RR, I am simply suggesting it as a way to get more of an understanding of what Rouzan would look like on a MUCH smaller scale.

Katowoman, I think a website such as you suggest and describe is an excellent idea, as opposed to sites like the SCA one and the stop Rouzan one which do not provide any options for interactions such as asking questions, making corrections, etc., and simply “push their views” on the reader. Contact me if you would like to discuss this further. Thanks to all who made it to the end of this long-winded 3-part post and I apologize for the length. There is just so much information out there people do not know about or do not fully understand.

This may be my last post and yes, I am sure many of you will be glad. It seems pointless to try to provide facts and information to people who do not want to hear or to know or to make informed decisions rather than forming reactionary opinions based on misinformation.

On A better idea

Posted on November 14 at 9:09 a.m.

(cont'd from above: Despite the loud noise put forth by a relatively small few (when you consider the affected population), there are a huge number of proponents right in our very neighborhood - people who want to live there because of the enhanced quality of life it will offer. Why don't they speak up more? Simple, too many of us have been harassed, insulted, and even subject to intimidation tactics by those who oppose Rouzan. The opponents of Rouzan talk about our right to free speech. However I think they think it only applies to them as they are quashing every attempt to present the other side. What their stop rouzan website conveniently failed to mention is that long before a few of the opponents’ signs were removed and some frustrated person took a saw to one, the proponents put up hundreds of signs for Rouzan. By the next morning, they were torn down and REPLACED by various Reject Rouzan signs. But they don't tell you that part. How is that free speech?

To Jon_Deaux and others who think this way, TNDs were created for just EXACTLY this type of existing, established neighborhood infill development. It is a traditional Neighborhood development. Yes there are urban versions that belong in the city core, but there are also neighborhood versions specifically suited to Southdowns, and that is what Rouzan is. This is just an additional example of lack of information. People who are not in the field have a hard time understanding what density figures translate in to in reality.

I am not putting Spinosa up for sainthood as some suggest. But for those who insist he is only doing this for the money, let me ask you a question. Don't you think if he was only interested in making a buck he would have developed an A1 subdivision by now? He could have thrown up some crappy subdivision and have long been raking in the profits. Why in the world would he put up with all this harassment if this was his only motivation? And why would he be putting all this time (over 2 years) and effort (and money) into researching this subject?

On A better idea

Posted on November 14 at 9:04 a.m.

katowoman, I am very impressed by your commitment to find out the facts for yourself and then form your opinion. That is all I am asking that our neighbors do. Websites like the stop Rouzan one that claim to post facts are not helping the situation. They post opinions and misinformation, as well as selectively post information which does not give you all the info you need to properly evaluate the situation. For instance, you cannot compare the densities of Rouzan with other TNDs like River Ranch. This is just another example of people being ill-informed or uninformed. River Ranch is almost three times the size in acreage of Rouzan and so has the size to include many estate lots. When you figure that into the mix, it brings their overall density figures down and so it appears that Rouzan is denser, when actually, that is not the case. This also means you do not compare overall densities, you compare densities for each land usage type.
katowoman, I suggest you check out the www.NewPartners.org website. This is about the annual Smart Growth conference and can give you info about the latest issues which you can then research further if you like. You will learn why the CDC, the EPA, the U.S. Department of Defense, and others are all involved in these types of better planning models.

Most people do not realize that this is a much bigger issue than just what goes into our backyard (although a TND will greatly improve our backyard too). Planning can help mitigate situations such as our public health crisis (obesity and obesity related illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.) and the state of our environment (every little step we take just adds to all the other steps until we reach critical mass which makes the biggest impact). TNDs also help the economic stability and vitality of our community and city (TNDs offer huge quality of life improvements which attract businesses, economic development and investment for the city as a whole - and keep our young, talented residents from moving elsewhere to get what we are not providing). And why is the Dept. of Defense involved? Because TNDs have an impact on homeland security by taking the first steps toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And there are many more implications we must consider.

TNDs also foster community, and with that comes safety and reduced crime as well as the many other benefits it gives us. The only legitimate critique I have heard regarding TNDs is that they are so wildly popular and demand so far greater than supply, that the prices go up and make it difficult for some to afford to live in them. If these developments are so much in demand, I fail to see how people here can say no one wants one. (post cont'd below.)

On A better idea

Posted on November 12 at 7:22 p.m.

You are right and it is time I don't have. But I believe it is important for people to have the right information and that is part of my job as a planner. There is too much on the site to respond to, as I said, people should do their own research rather than believing what someone else tells them - that includes what I say. But at the risk of being accused of dodging the question, I will address a couple of quick points.

The site claims "Unlike other cities, we’re going to place our first TND in the middle of a heavily congested area" and with that "the density proposed for Rouzan is higher than most TNDs" and "in addition, most of these [TNDs] fall more in outlying areas." Where to begin? First, TNDs were created as infill development, not greenfield (or outlying areas) as that defeats the purpose of combating sprawl. They were meant for locations just like our situation. Second, there are 383 TND communities in 35 states (& DC) and 11 countries (including 10 in LA. And this is not BR's, nor the greater BR area's 1st TND. To say the density proposed for Rouzan is higher "than most TNDs" is just a completely uninformed statement. I doubt seriously the writer examined all 383 (+ the ones in other countries) TNDs. Next, OVER 50% of Rouzan is low density single family residential (this is required by our TND ordinance). The two 1/2 extra units per acre only exist in less than half of the development. And it is also obvious that these (or this) writer is using the term "Smart Growth" incorrectly. If that person had a clear understanding of the Smart Growth priniciples and the issues involved as well as the implications for more responsible planning, they would realize that Rouzan is EXACTLY what we need. And not just our neighborhood, but the city as a whole. I could go on, but the # of words for comments is limited. People need to really understand what they are fighting against and do the research for themselves. And what, people don't think an A-1 Subdivision is going to funnel a lot of traffic to Lee and Perkins? The TND form is the only zoning that can help mitigate the traffic problem.

Lastly, Jon_Deaux, I agree. We do need public/private partnerships for TNDs in Mid-City and OSBR. But that doesn't mean our neighborhood cannot benefit as well. If the people fight agains TNDs all the time, though, what developer is going to put one in those areas you mention?

On A better idea

Posted on November 12 at 5:07 p.m.

Dear les70808: I do live in Southdowns. I have to say that that I don't have a problem with people holding a different opinion than I do. I do regret, though, that so many in the neighborhood are forming their opinions based on incorrect information. I could easily fill a page with the number of inaccurate statements I have heard from my neighbors regarding this development that are being spread around as fact.

In addition, the new website against Rouzan is also filled with misinformation. I think it is a disservice to all neighbors to be claiming that this site offers "facts." A simple check would reveal the inaccuracies on this site. What I can't understand is why people do not bother to get the correct information for themselves. I would think that something as important as this proposal, something so many are so passionate about, would prompt people to do their own research and get the facts, rather than relying on what they hear. As an urban planner and a neighbor, I find this disturbing.

If people would do their research, they would find that in fact, TNDs RAISE property values (not cheapen housing values) and that an A-1 only subdivision will greatly increase traffic as well as make it "more of a hassle to get to and from home." In this respect, A-1 only is a much worse proposition than a TND, so the traffic arguments make no sense. But the planning commissioners will recognize that.

Also, les70808, the correct intials are TND, not THD.

On A better idea

Posted on November 5 at 6:40 p.m.

katowoman, can you further explain what you mean by "it would be great if the Rouzan planning was done in conjunction with working on our streets to make that TND vision truly work, don't you think? The seed of that concept is nowhere to be seen in their plans as they've been presented to date"? I'm not sure how correcting our streets in the rest of the neighborhood is the responsibility of JTS. Isn't that our responsibility? As it is, JTS is already planning to put in sidewalks on Glasgow - something they certainly don't have to do, but that would benefit us. JTS shouldn't have to pay for failures of the city (and our failures as well, for not doing something about it).

And as I said before, one TND will not solve all of our problems, but it can begin to start to mitigate some of them. And just because it can't solve everything, doesn't mean we shouldn't embrace it for what it can do. I think the rest of us need to step up to the plate and take responsibilty to start doing our share in working on our neighborhoods.

I don't know where your experience or interests lie, but I do know that it is hard for people who do not have a lot of knowledge of planning to understand that this will be "logical and practical." When you are not used to looking at and understanding traffic numbers, they can certainly seem overwhelming. But Rouzan has to go through city/parish planning and DPW before it can even go for a vote with the Planning Commissioners. If DPW and the city planners did not think it was doable and reasonable at this time, (they have to approve it first)it would never make it to the PC.

I must say that it is really wonderful to hear a neighbor actually trying to get information and understand what is being proposed. I am afraid too many are just listening to the anti-TND propaganda being spread thru the neighborhood without actually getting the facts for themselves. I encourage you to keep learning and to be wary of the misinformation and distortions that are flying thru Southdowns.

Lastly, I hate to see you so worried about the integrity of our neighborhood. I think the more information you gain, the more you will realize how much this TND will actually help our neighborhood - the value it will add to both our quality of life and our property values is really immeasurable.

On A better idea

Posted on November 3 at 12:52 p.m.

Katowoman talks about speeding problems on her street. Here are a few suggestions for those experiencing the same. Try starting a dialogue with the city and the police. Go to your civic association board for help and advice. They should be knowledgable about all this - that's what they're there for. In the short term, they can help by arranging for periodic speed traps. The long term help involves the city.

Which brings me to the issue I keep hearing in our neighborhood that katowoman expressed as "Basically, the connectivity of the streets from a "pedestrian friendly" Rouzan would be into streets without sidewalks or speed controls." I don't think the answer is to keep building and planning in the same way (A-1 only development) that has created the problem in the first place. That would be like saying "I have problems on my street so everyone else should too." I'm certain the neighbors don't feel that way, but what they don't realize is that is exactly what they will create in opposing the TND.

We have to start with responsible planning somewhere and this TND is a good start. What I suggest is that we build upon that great start and pull together as a community to fix the rest of our neighborhood. One simple way to do this is to work with the city to get sidewalks on all of our streets and to get our streets restriped in order to make room for a bike lane or street parking. This has the effect of narrowing the streets and works as a traffic calming device - ideas taken from the TND concept. This way we can all enjoy a pedestrian-friendly environment and safer streets. Any traffic from Rouzan will flow into streets of the same design, eliminating the concern expressed above. And remember, there will be so many multiple routes people can take because of the connectivity that we won't need to worry that it all (or even a lot) will come down our particular street.

It is the advent of the residential-only subdivision model (separation of uses), combined with the Federal Interstate Highway act and affordable cars that has created the traffic mess, the reduced sense of community, the environmental degradation, the inefficient land usage, the public health obesity crisis, etc., etc. . . . that we find ourselves experiencing today. What people don't often realize is that responsible planning has implications and effects far greater than just what is built in our backyards. Improving our planning and building practices throughout the city(the TND model can help) is about creating economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and improved public health for all of BR. Instead of fighting against the TND, let's work with it by using some of its concepts to help improve our own neighborhoods. That combined effort will go a long way to improving our quality of life throughout Southdowns.

On A better idea