Archived

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

JAS

ADA Twp

22 posts in this topic

I heard that Ada twp wants to push through some re-zoning laws. right now if you are zoned residential you can build 1 house per 3 acres, and ag. is 1 house per every 5 acres. They want to make it res. 1 per every 5 acres and ag. 1 per every 10 acres. Any truth to this? If so are they not taking away our rights as property owners, and making our land less valuable? Oh and of course they are going to want to keep the taxes the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I heard that Ada twp wants to push through some re-zoning laws. right now if you are zoned residential you can build 1 house per 3 acres, and ag. is 1 house per every 5 acres. They want to make it res. 1 per every 5 acres and ag. 1 per every 10 acres. Any truth to this? If so are they not taking away our rights as property owners, and making our land less valuable? Oh and of course they are going to want to keep the taxes the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's asinine if you ask me. They obviously want to keep out tighter density neighborhoods, and just have a bunch of Catamounts in Ada. Snobbish, near sighted and poor use of land. They're just going to push people further out into Lowell and its surrounding townships, and have all those people driving through Ada and clogging the roads in Ada. It's like the Ada officials are straight out of the 1980's or something. Unfortunately, I bet it will get broad support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about it getting support. So far the people i have talked to about this have said the same thing you have said, and these are people who live in ada twp. What is going to happen is your every day "joe smith" who owns ten acres now and thinks he has 4 splits as of now will go and try to sell his land in 5 years marketing it as 4 splits (or how ever many you can have now) then he will realize he does not have those split and wonder why. So now his land is worth less, meanwhile his taxes keep going up and up.

Don't forget Devos and Tubergen own probably around 1,000 acres total in ada twp, once they get wind of the the government telling them what they can and can't do with their land, it will be a whole different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard that Ada twp wants to push through some re-zoning laws. right now if you are zoned residential you can build 1 house per 3 acres, and ag. is 1 house per every 5 acres. They want to make it res. 1 per every 5 acres and ag. 1 per every 10 acres. Any truth to this? If so are they not taking away our rights as property owners, and making our land less valuable? Oh and of course they are going to want to keep the taxes the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings about this ordinance. AdaTwp, especially the rural area north of Pettis, has some of the most beautiful countryside in W. Michigan. Take a drive along Dogwood & Conservation, where Honey Creek meanders through...it's pretty incredible. If fewer homes are allowed to be buildt in this area, I'm all for it (this area needs to be preserved as much as possible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they should consider more targeted zoning, then? Allow the developed area of Cascade to continue as is, change zoning for the Pettis area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have mixed feelings about this ordinance. AdaTwp, especially the rural area north of Pettis, has some of the most beautiful countryside in W. Michigan. Take a drive along Dogwood & Conservation, where Honey Creek meanders through...it's pretty incredible. If fewer homes are allowed to be buildt in this area, I'm all for it (this area needs to be preserved as much as possible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You know - I really don't see what the big deal is about this...if that's what the township wants, then that's what the township gets. So they don't want to turn Ada into a sprawling residential area...fine. The wealthier people have to live somewhere too you know, and maybe some of them choose to not live in dense neighborhoods. I think Ada is a nice area to visit, but personally with the ridiculous amount of taxes that they probably charge for living there, let them eat their cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have mixed feelings about this ordinance. AdaTwp, especially the rural area north of Pettis, has some of the most beautiful countryside in W. Michigan. Take a drive along Dogwood & Conservation, where Honey Creek meanders through...it's pretty incredible. If fewer homes are allowed to be buildt in this area, I'm all for it (this area needs to be preserved as much as possible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a resident and I'm all for it.

It looks like the typical advocates of building higher density and trying to create a mini-Chicago out of Grand Rapids are against it and residents are for it. There are plenty of surrounding areas to develop at a higher density in West Michigan. What's the big deal w/ a township trying to maintain the character that originally brought its current residents?

Anyone sitting on enough land to be substantially impacted has probably written off developing and splitting their property for many years anyway w/ the current status of the market. I drive by the stalled out "The Villas of Ada" every morning. I'm glad that we cut down some nice forest area for that gem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I been thinking about this for a long time since it came out. I been trying to understand it and frankly I just am with the mindset that for communities like them you need to have some good ground rules. Now my brother lives in the township east of caledonia and they have set a limit of one house per 1 acre. When you look at the development that he bought in he actually has a good sized yard and its not like the houses are on top of each other. With 2.5 acres that they currently have I could only imagine what it looks like then they want it up to 5 acres. Now here is the kicker if you have less residents thats less you have to provide services to. Higher densities just mean more services just look at Wyoming or Grand Rapids for density.

Now I been looking at finaces vs population for cities and since land planning plays a big part of it I put it towards Ada. The thing you have to remember is Ada is trying not have a lot of housing aka people. Less people equals less money spent on services provided. Now here is the kicker, money comes in from other things than houses. Thats where my research into Wyoming, Kentwood, and Grand Rapids plays in. Kentwood has a taxable value in the neighborhood of 2 billion dollars, Wyoming is just above that at 2.2 billion, and Grand Rapids is at 4 billion roughly. You have to remember that the DDAs of Wyoming and Grand Rapids do take out some of its taxable value. Now you look at population, Grand Rapids is around 200k, Wyoming around 70k, and Kentwood 45k. Now you see taxable value has little to do with population but rather the commerical and industrial that a city has. And I tell ya one thing right now the cities of Grand Rapids and Wyoming are hurting but I do not here a lot from Kentwood. Now each have diffrent tax structures but frankly if Ada wants to have a smaller population maybe they can increase that by getting more bussiness in there to support the township and that means more power to the township. Frankly its not a Urban vs suburban vs rural issue its more along lines of the simple fact that they do not want a lot of density.

In anycase my good jugdement considers it fine for a township that is not in any means close to the grand rapids city core. As for making GR a little chicago, I would prefer to see us set our own path in density. I like being the little unknown city on the Grand River.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a resident and I'm all for it.

It looks like the typical advocates of building higher density and trying to create a mini-Chicago out of Grand Rapids are against it and residents are for it. There are plenty of surrounding areas to develop at a higher density in West Michigan. What's the big deal w/ a township trying to maintain the character that originally brought its current residents?

Anyone sitting on enough land to be substantially impacted has probably written off developing and splitting their property for many years anyway w/ the current status of the market. I drive by the stalled out "The Villas of Ada" every morning. I'm glad that we cut down some nice forest area for that gem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a resident and I'm all for it.

It looks like the typical advocates of building higher density and trying to create a mini-Chicago out of Grand Rapids are against it and residents are for it. There are plenty of surrounding areas to develop at a higher density in West Michigan. What's the big deal w/ a township trying to maintain the character that originally brought its current residents?

Anyone sitting on enough land to be substantially impacted has probably written off developing and splitting their property for many years anyway w/ the current status of the market. I drive by the stalled out "The Villas of Ada" every morning. I'm glad that we cut down some nice forest area for that gem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You just said it in your own words "anyone sitting on enough land to be substantially impacted" this decision by the township will impact land owners greatly. How do you know what people are thinking, I will tell that if this goes through people that do have land including me will write of developing my piece of property that I spent my hard earned money on. Now the local government is going to tell me that I can't develop my land and make money on it for my future and my family's future. Just because they don't like growth, and they don't like growth because they don't have anyone in the twp offices that knows how to deal with it (development) in a good way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


yeep that works for me. as i said in my previous post the amount of tax revenue a local unit gets does not correspond to single family homes but rather multi family units, commercial propeties and some industry buildings depending on the personal propety in those buildings. i do have to say that the more spread out a city is the harder it is for said city to provide services at the same level to everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, that's the problem, the Township officials are just too stupid to get it. <_<

Here's a wild thought (and I am just speculating): maybe, by increasing the minimum lot sizes in the AG and rural residential districts, they are trying to discourage development in agricultural and rural areas (farmland preservation!), if we assume developers would be less likely to develop something at such a low density because they would make less money. Maybe by doing this, they are trying to direct growth towards areas that are better suited for higher density development. What's wrong with that?

(Yes I realize that downzoning reduces developability for those landowners, but that's a different argument all together)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to consider is this. At 4 dollars per gallon for gasoline and if you drive an auto that has 25 miles per gallon as the basic facts. If you also say you drive say 25 miles one way to work. You are looking at least 8 dollars per day at work or 40 dollars a week. Now that is fine but say you drive a gas guzzler like I do and get 10 miles per gallon and say you work 30 miles away. That means you are now spending 120 dollars a week. Of course for me I work 2 miles away which means I spend just about 8 dollars a week on gas. But I do think a study could be easily done. Most insurance companies ask for the amount of miles to and from work then you also have stats on the autos they insure and from that you can get a pretty good picture of the gas millage of those vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeep that works for me. as i said in my previous post the amount of tax revenue a local unit gets does not correspond to single family homes but rather multi family units, commercial propeties and some industry buildings depending on the personal propety in those buildings. i do have to say that the more spread out a city is the harder it is for said city to provide services at the same level to everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition, running infrastructure (storm and sanitary sewer, water, electricity, cable, etc) is a lot less cost effective and more wasteful when it serves a density of 500 people/sq mi vs. 5000 people/sq mi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as much as I would love to get into transportation on here the simple fact is that I paid Zero for my truck, I need a truck to work on my house, and lastly I do not have any spare cash to buy a small compact. If I did have any spare cash I would spend it on fixing up my house. I am required to drive to work, just being a manager requires it so I have to deal. In anycase I do not drive a lot with the truck so I feel I am eco sensitive if that matters.

As for infrastructure yes it is more costly to serve people in less density but you have consider that townships will not serve everybody. What I am more concerned with is if you have a township that would look like Wyoming in that every square mile you have housing with very little commerical or industrial and you try to provide policing, ems service, and fire protection you need a lot money to do so. Wyoming spends good amount on policing thier city and they have a very low crime rate to show for it. Fire well lets not talk about it, they spend roughly 3 out of the 11 mills on fire alone but its not enough to be honest. So it has become apparent to me and some others that they need to something but I just dont think they will do anything. I also think a lot of townships are starting to see that maybe having all of this developement is not such a good idea. Taxes are one thing but if you can protect and provide safety for your residents it becomes apparent that you need to have certian things done. I will say this, Cascade is doing the right thing if they are willing to use two diffrent zonings for thier township. One for the outskirts to keep them rural in appearence and the other to focus developement where they can be served the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.