|
Dear Editor,
Allow me to present a scenario and to pose a question.
A resident makes a choice to insufficiently insure his or her home. Unfortunately, the home is rendered unlivable. The resident subsequently purchases an estate in a particular area of the city where many stately manor homes exist on well groomed, spacious grounds. The resident purchases this new home at more than twice the selling price of the first home with the intent of parceling and selling part of the property and to thereby regain the loss from the poor insurance decision. All he or she need do is convince the local city council to approve a change in zoning, whereby three additional lots may be created on the property for further development.
However, the property is not in rural surroundings where such development would have little adverse effect on neighboring land and residents. No, this property abuts a well-established, quaint neighborhood with modest homes that date back to the turn of the last century. The character of this neighborhood and its narrow lane along the estate property is, to any realtor’s sensibilities, the absolute essence of unique, charming, and stable. Newly-built homes on the proposed lots likely would be architectural anomalies – totally unlike the older homes already in the area. It seems that the landowner’s rezoning proposal would not violate any legal statutes.
As neighbors “catch wind” of the proposal to parcel the estate, they rally and begin a petition against the scheme. They voice their vehement objections at the city council hearing. But it doesn’t stop there; city residents living in and around the affected area begin to pen their objections in the local newspaper; in fact, they are joined in their sentiments by the editor himself! People drive by the property in question, pointing at the beautiful trees and shaking their heads in disbelief. In fact, except for the landowner (and one poorly-informed resident who does not seem to have read the city’s development plan), all of the constituents of this small city who have voiced their opinions appear to be against the rezoning.
The local city council is responsible for implementing a carefully fashioned, much touted (and probably fairly costly) Comprehensive Plan for development which unambiguously states among its numerous key objectives to “Maintain the scale, quality and appearance of existing residential neighborhoods.” This plan contains language clearly aimed at preserving community integrity, such as “Maintain the predominant low density character,” and regulate “subdivision and zoning codes to maintain existing neighborhood ambiance.” The plan also calls to “Educate and encourage private property owners to preserve and protect open space areas and environmental features on their property.” In essence, this particular city’s comprehensive plan seeks to maintain the integrity of existing neighborhoods and protect them from reckless and opportunistic development.
Now the question: Should the council members vote to allow the zoning change to occur just because it is within their power to do so? In other words, even though the land owner’s opportunistic proposal is not illegal and the city council CAN vote to change the zoning, the question is, SHOULD the council vote to allow it to happen? To assist this city council, four important points should be kept clearly in focus: One, the beneficiary of rezoning is a single property owner who seeks the change admittedly for personal financial gain. Two, the rezoning is neither advantageous for nor desired by the neighborhood residents, and quite possibly could prove deleterious to their property values. (Who will cover their losses?) Three, the rezoning sets an undesirable precedent toward unheeded development. Four, and most importantly, the rezoning obviously runs counter to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Oakwood’s forbearers had a vision. I urge City Council to honor that vision, for that is why Oakwood has become the highly desirable community that it is. At stake here is more than just a chunk of land or someone refilling their coffers. At stake is the integrity of a neighborhood with unique features that lend great value to a beautiful city. At stake are the values of that community.
James Hiller
I want to thank Colleen and Julia Judge, their family, Dr. Patrick Reynolds, the members of the Giving Strings Orchestra and the community for the wonderful support given to Project READ at the Giving Strings Concert on August 5, 2006. The dedication demonstrated by all the participants to making a difference in the greater Dayton area through music is impressive.
This year their efforts will enhance Project READ’s ability to build a more literate community through collaboration. We are striving to encourage more adults and parents to increase their literacy abilities in order to raise the skill level of Dayton’s workforce, create a more literate home environment for children, and improve people’s capacity to understand the healthcare system. We are also actively recruiting volunteer tutors to work with either adults or children who struggle with reading or English. The community’s wonderful support of Project READ through the Giving Strings Concert gives us a great boost towards our goals.
Thanks again to Colleen, Julia and all the wonderful people who made the 2006 Giving Strings Concert such a success.
Nancy Jones
Executive Director
Project READ
top of page
|
