HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE Steve Oakey Feb 19 3rd W neighborhood comp plan change.msgSteve,
Per your request, I have forwarded your letter to City Clerk Blair Kay
for the City Council’s information. This issue will be on the March 18th
City Council agenda.
Thank you,
Elaine McFerrin
P&Z Coordinator
City of Rexburg
208.359.3020 ext. 2334
cid:image001.jpg@01CDE420.F3F29460
From: Steve Oakey
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 9:40 PM
To: Elaine McFerrin
Subject: Steve Oakey, Feb 19 3rd W neighborhood comp plan change
Elaine,
Please include this letter in the Feb 19, 2015 P&Z minutes. I stated in
that meeting that I would submit a letter to be included in the minutes.
I would also like this letter included in city council member packets in
reference to this action, and if possible, read aloud during the
meeting.
Thanks,
Steve Oakey
Since having the privilege of serving on the board of the Rexburg
Planning and Zoning commission I have found myself being the lone voice
on several important votes. No doubt, some have seen my actions as being
those of an obstructionist intent on making mischief. I assure the City
Council and the public, that to the contrary, my passioned reasoning
comes from a strong assumption of liberal, responsible land use,
guaranteed to all, by simple, equitable, efficient rule of law, that
runs counter to the current complex, multiplicity of head long rule
making. And to that end I feel compelled to explain, precisely, so as to
be clearly understood how I arrive at my vote. In the future, whenever I
am the single “no” vote on important issues I will make it a habit of
formulating my arguments in written form, and submit them for public
scrutiny.
February 19th P&Z voted yes to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment request by The 3rd West Neighborhood Association. I was the
single “no” vote for the following two reasons:
First, the request violates, if not the letter of the City’s
Infill/Redevelopment code (Pg 217-222), then most certainly it runs
counter to the clearly stated intent. “It is in the best interest of all
of the citizens of Rexburg to locate Higher Density Housing Projects
near Campus and the City Core”. Two thirds of the neighborhood’s
requested Comp Plan Map change lay within the clearly defined
“Redevelopment Area” (pg 218) and the other third outside of the
Redevelopment Area have been designated as mostly “undeveloped” or
“Vacant” by the City’s 2012 “Proposed Redevelopment and Infill Emphasis
Zone” (inserted into official City Council minutes, January 21, 2015).
The Infill “Policy Statement” (pg 220) also states that “…making the
necessary zone changes to encourage development not only will clean up
vacant weeded properties, but will also partially ‘level the playing
field’ for these projects versus the lower cost of finding cheaper
agricultural ground on the periphery of the city. Infill and
Redevelopment are also encouraged in other parts of the City of Rexburg
besides the Focus Area”. In regards this clear statement the City
Council must ask; How can we “encourage development” by placing further
restrictions on property sellers, buyers and developers on core
properties located in the Infill zone or “other parts of the City of
Rexburg besides the Focus Area”. In addition it must be stated that no
project scoring was performed on this area or at least if project
scoring was done, it was not presented to the P&Z board as is required;
“All Infill/Redevelopment projects are to be scored by using the
weighted categories as identified above” (pg 220).
Second, at the risk of offending, let me state what everyone knows, but
few are willing to say. With-in a period of 5-10 years some numbers of
these neighbors or their heirs will come to the City seeking to rezone
their properties for the purpose maximizing property values. We also
know that in requests of this nature, not all parties are fairly
represented, even when many sign petitions or show up in city hall, as
is evidenced by the submitted letter of Reginal and Corinne Wight. Who
is to represent those property owners who wish to remain silent for fear
of offending others or the children or grandchildren who will be future
heirs, or the many hundreds or thousands of future occupants,
construction workers, investors, or any of the countless “unknowns”
adversely affected by narrow restrictions. The denial of the
right-to-build, limits the options of all prospective sellers, buyers,
builders, and both current and future occupants. To the extent that we
place prohibitory regulations between a voluntary buyer/seller,
contractor/owner, renter/landlord, we have taken value from their
private arrangement. It behooves us that we narrowly define the role of
the regulatory agent to oversee cases of force and fraud, health and
safety, and to restrict levels of political discretion.
As a postscript it should be noted that the hard work of the 3rd West
Neighborhood Association is not in vain. They still retain the right to
enter into voluntary land use covenants with all property owners, who
thus far, have agreed to restrictive development, however they legally
choose to define.
Steve Oakey