Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gs3

One small step against sprawl

5 posts in this topic

:thumbsup: A small victory against sprawl. The Greenville County Planning Commission denied a proposal for a 100 plus home development on Scuffletown Road.....this is the project that has been making news headlines as area residents were against the project. According to the article, this could still go either way once a growth study is complete, but for now, seems like a small victory. Thoughts?

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs....NEWS01/60629001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


:thumbsup: A small victory against sprawl. The Greenville County Planning Commission denied a proposal for a 100 plus home development on Scuffletown Road.....this is the project that has been making news headlines as area residents were against the project. According to the article, this could still go either way once a growth study is complete, but for now, seems like a small victory. Thoughts?

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs....NEWS01/60629001

Here's my thought: I don't like sprawl, but I like things to be fair. Many of the people complaining about the 'density' of the proposed neighborhood live in Dunwoody Oaks (a neighborhood of about 600 homes, each on about .15 acres). The average lot size in the proposed neighborhood will be about 1/3 acre. In my opinion, this is NIMBY for NIMBY's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, perhaps a victory. Unless they go farther out and build something anyway... I agree with the above, it's sprawl complaining about sprawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, perhaps a victory. Unless they go farther out and build something anyway... I agree with the above, it's sprawl complaining about sprawl.
But that's almost always the case....people who obtain access to something end up wanting the door shut behind them. (See also: Immigration; lawyers wanting more restrictions on admission to the bar; health club memberships....) The point at which the scales tip and an individual's threshold point is reached often follows closely on the heels of that person passing through the very portal that must now be closed.

Hypocrisy or not, the question before the Planning Commission -- and soon to come before County Council -- is not about who is bringing the complaint, whether they're hypocrites, or even whether they're illegal aliens giving out legal advice at a health club. The Planning Commission -- which is comprised largely of members who are far more complicit in the sprawl when they're at their paying jobs -- is charged with viewing proposals and determining their viability on the merits of the filing.

Their decision here is advisory...at best. Historically speaking, County Council places little weight in their decisions on such matters. They're as likely to vote with the Planning Commission recommendation as they are to vote against it.

The real problem with the Planning Commission -- for those County Councilors seeking a change in its structure -- comes from its supervisory function over the Planning Department staff (full-time planners for the county). On that, County Council's hands are tied. The staff and their boss must please the three member personnel committee of the Council-appointed Planning Commission. And that 3-member personnel committee is very tight with developers and very pro-development.

But worse than that, we've got a Planning Department that need not answer to anyone but those three people. So if the Public Works Dept. needs help on a project, it's the Planning Dept's prerogative to answer or not.

Imagine a corporation where the Sales Dept. goes ahead and takes orders for 100,000 new doo-hickeys while the Manufacturing division is currently tooling itself to make doo-dads instead. And nobody losing their job for it!

That's the real problem...not these non-binding recommendations.

Still, this surprise vote by the Planning Commission could be a real ball-buster for Council Chair Butch Kirven who contends that the independent governance of the planning staff is terrible. Kirven has made the point that it's long past time for the Planning Commission to have no say in directing planning staff, evaluating them, or setting their compensation. Kirven -- justifiably in my opinion -- believes that's properly the job of County Administrator Joe Kernell. It is, after all, the only way to ensure coordination of important county functions.

But now County Council is getting a non-binding recommendation to vote against this new subdivision. If the problem with unchecked growth is really because the Planning Commission is out of control, then all eyes should be on County Council. Let's see what they do once the hot potato is sent to them. It would have to be a bitter blow to Butch if County Council votes for the development and it would take some of the hot air out of Butch Kirven's balloon if it turns out that his colleagues are more inclined to give the green light to sprawl than the Planning Commission.

It's not really what Kirven was hoping to address with his ordinance, but it will certainly reflect on the logic behind his restructuring ordinance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked this neighborhood a lot. I liked that it was semi-rural yet convenient to Woodruff Road. I even met the parrots at the General Store, and I wished the Dancin' Barn was open for the summer. :silly:

It would be less desirable as a typical suburban neighborhood with all the parcel of lands turned over to subdivisions. So, even amongst new comers I think there is a limit as to what will be supported. I'll bet longtime residents have an even lower tolerance. If what attracts you to an area is destroyed, your reason for investing there is taken away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.