Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009...7:01 pm
Bird Houk throws down gauntlet of environmental protection
The master plan draft, submitted by Bird Houk last month, throws down the gauntlet regarding protection of the environment on a variety of fronts.
For years, the green space committee and Recreation & Preservation Committee has been — let us say — not frequently consulted on areas in which they specialize.
In 2007, Council placed a .25-percent income tax on the ballot only to add a competing income tax issue to the same ballot. Neither passed.
Voters have turned down the “overlay rule” which was similar to “conservation developments” being proposed by Bird Houk. The devil — and the difference — may prove to be the details between these two similar concepts.
The city is still working on EPA stormwater control regs that ideally should have been passed in March 2008. A law was passed then, but Planning Director Jeff Pritchard has since called the law on the books “unenforceable.” EPA officials are pleased the city is working toward upgrading their laws, but the laws have been the subject of some bumpy hearings before the planning commission and City Council.
Unchanged, the master plan seems to embrace the goals of the Recreation & Preservation Committee and call for funding open space acquisition (several options are listed). It also seems to assume the passage of updated stormwater control regulations.
The changes — taken as a whole — represent a sea change in how the city deals with its environmental assets. It may be interesting to see what limitations are faced by the first developer who applies to build under the new plan and (hopefully) zoning regulations.
2 Comments
June 5th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Since my appointment to Streetsboro’s Recreation and Preservation/Greenspace Committee, I have felt like we were a “voice crying out in the darkness” promoting the need to preserve open space.
I applaud the citizens of Streetsboro who responded to the Master Plan survey and overwhelmingly supported the need to preserve our natural features and resources.
Due to this support, the Master Plan’s first pass has the following as one of its goals: To preserve, protect, and connect areas of significant environmental importance, optimize the value and benefits of those resources for the community and minimize the impacts of development.
The Plan even includes our committee’s slogan,
“Preserve, Protect, Connect,”
penned by Paul Yupa, one of our original greenspace committee members. These three words simply state our committee’s reason for existence and hopefully our city’s map for the future.
Approval (and eventual implementation/funding) of the Master Plan open space and preservation goals is crucial to the future of our city.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:27 am
While I also strongly support the need to preserve our natural resources and open space in our city I also wonder what the true motives behind certain individuals who tout it the most.
It is possible that one of the true motives behind our biggest supporters are usually land owners here in the city who are simply behind the plan to tighten up supply and drive up land values. It would be nice for a resident like myself and many other who lives in a townhome or condo to be able to “trade up” and be able to find a place to build his next home without being forced to build a home in an existing development with a limited choice of home plans (i.e. Ryan Homes), paying an “association fee” and being subject to covenants that are weakly enforced by the actual homeowner associations that implement them.
I predict that the future of Streetsboro will be where existing residents who have land acting as “land barons” by holding on to supply being protected by zoning and a master plan and newcomers being forced to live in condos or build a tract-house on a postage stamp sized lot.
I find it ironic that in a city of 25 square miles and only 15,000 people (that is only 600 people per square mile) that you cannot find a decent 100 x 200 lot to build on without having to be forced to build in a development like Hannum Crossing that has square foot minimums which you literally have to construct a “McMansion” to meet their covenants.
How much of this “green space” will be for the good and use for all residents? How much of this space will become park land or mixed use trails that would be beneficial to us all? I don’t want to wait 10-15 years for the first bike trail to be constructed.
I support the Master Plan on paper but question some of the motives behind it. One question that needs to be answered is will it truly benefit us all or benefit those who “already got theirs”. One of the consequences will be the lack of affordable housing. I’m not talking “Section 8″ but reasonably-priced new construction without having to build for $300,000+ or conversely having to be right on top on your neighbor.
These are things to think about.
Leave a Reply