Fairhope, Alabama
Update: This project was approved by the city council during its November meeting.
"KLUMPP PUD" ON HWY 181
On Monday, October 28th the city council will hold a public hearing and begin considering final approval of the application submitted by owner Gayfer Village Partners for a three part planned unit development on 76 acres of mostly farm land on the northwest corner of Fairhope Avenue and Hwy 181 consisting of:
Unit 1: 16 commercial lots (B-2).
Unit 2: 232 multi-family apartment units (R-5). (pink on the diagram)
Unit 3: 77 lots single family residential (R-3). (green on the diagram)
The property is currently outside of city limits in the un-zoned county; it will be concurrently annexed into the city on approval ... and city impact fees will be collected accordingly.
Exact site plans for phases one and two will still need the city council's approval before construction could begin.
Developer for the project is listed as Tom Mitchell.
MUNICIPAL JUDGE A PARTNER
According to probate court records, Municipal Judge Haymes Snedeker is the sole member of Gayfer Village Partners, Llc; his law/business partner Ray Hix is its organizer. Hix served on the city's Airport Authority until last year.
They also own Hix Snedeker Companies, a nationwide commercial development business (click).
The property was previously owned by the Klumpp family, where an unpaved airfield by that name operated for many years.
(Usually, the city council will introduce an ordinance then let it "lay over" until its next meeting where the final vote will be taken.)
Update: This project was approved by the city council during its November meeting.
 |
| North is up |
"KLUMPP PUD" ON HWY 181
On Monday, October 28th the city council will hold a public hearing and begin considering final approval of the application submitted by owner Gayfer Village Partners for a three part planned unit development on 76 acres of mostly farm land on the northwest corner of Fairhope Avenue and Hwy 181 consisting of:
Unit 1: 16 commercial lots (B-2).
Unit 2: 232 multi-family apartment units (R-5). (pink on the diagram)
Unit 3: 77 lots single family residential (R-3). (green on the diagram)
The property is currently outside of city limits in the un-zoned county; it will be concurrently annexed into the city on approval ... and city impact fees will be collected accordingly.
Exact site plans for phases one and two will still need the city council's approval before construction could begin.
Developer for the project is listed as Tom Mitchell.
MUNICIPAL JUDGE A PARTNER
According to probate court records, Municipal Judge Haymes Snedeker is the sole member of Gayfer Village Partners, Llc; his law/business partner Ray Hix is its organizer. Hix served on the city's Airport Authority until last year.
They also own Hix Snedeker Companies, a nationwide commercial development business (click).
The property was previously owned by the Klumpp family, where an unpaved airfield by that name operated for many years.
(Usually, the city council will introduce an ordinance then let it "lay over" until its next meeting where the final vote will be taken.)
 |
| Klump PUD diagram (north to right) |
 |
| Gayfer Village Partners |
Comments
Filing of Rezoning, Site Plan Approval and Multiple Occupancy Project Applications within
the Corporate Limits of the City of Fairhope through and including December 31, 2019.
(Introduced at the August 26, 2019 City Council Meeting)
Please do share the detailed results and irreproachable methodology of your argument-ending survey of Fairhope's residents.
If I follow the logical fallacy correctly, the interregnum between our elections marks a period during which every voter agrees--perforce--with every decision made by their ballot box choices who populate the incumbent board. Independent thought ceases until those voters next enter the ballot box, while those who voted for electoral also-rans must shut up and submit.
If this is so, council meetings no longer need to be public. By virtue of their election, our mayor and councilmen have been endowed with the right (the obligation?) to ignore us on any issue--whether it arose before, during, or after we exercised our franchise.
My request stands, unmoved by your straw man. Where are the current and relevant public opinion data on this specific issue? The question remains unanswered and, doubtless, unanswerable.
No wonder the population is booming. Free psychoanalysis is on offer, and worth every penny.
Noting that change is inevitable is no insight, and voter apathy is not breaking news. Neither observation informs sound public policy.
The purpose of public fora, such as this, is to provide space for a conversation among concerned and informed residents--ideally, within earshot (eyeshot) of their elected leaders.
Calls to shut down that conversation, name-calling, and projection subtract from civic life. We should all be willing to reexamine our assumptions and consider differing opinions.
That past was never perfect, but neither is all change good.
Facts, reason, and a little humility will go a long way in helping our community move forward into sunlit uplands.
Dude, that guy/gal does write "pretty" and pretty sensible too.
When you have to go to I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I that means you lost the argument.
I care about our development, too. Lots of us do. And, I won't shut up just because there was an election.
Evidently, math is also hard to understand, because this means that only 21 people in Fairhope are concerned about the socio-economic impact of future real estate developments, suggesting that the debate is over. Indeed, it never really started if only two dozen cranks have it wrong.
These made-up statistics, along with sympathetic arguments and other "FACTS" offered elsewhere, mean that our country's 39,000-plus localities that recognize their responsibility to manage growth as it relates to infrastructure are practicing "communism."
Democracy (republicanism, actually) is not tantamount to anarchy; it's not a suicide pact.
Certainly, many of our fellow Alabamans chose to live here after fleeing states that overtax, over-regulate, and otherwise trample the Spirit of 1776. This does not mean, however, that our rightly cherished personal and economic freedoms have no limits.
Additionally, to repeatedly cite voter turnout data is to cavil most unpersuasively--and to indulge in multiple logical fallacies. Those data are not only a red herring, they also beg the question that all of the "complainers" are non-voters. No evidence is offered to prove such an assumption, and none will be.
Finally, claims that some wish to "tell everyone what to do" are histrionic and hyperbolic. Asking that our elected leaders sensibly exercise their legal authority in the service of public health, safety, and welfare is not telling everyone what to do. Closer to the mark is telling others that they have no right to speak out. THAT sounds a lot more like communism.
When a city is healthy, developers do well, and successful developments keep a city healthy. This symbiosis is not perfectible, but we must always be striving.
The self-regard inherent in pomposity, however, is amply demonstrated by the line of thinking that declares: "If I don't understand something, then nobody could understand."
Again, name-calling is a dead end street, adding nothing to our discussion. Instead of calling that writer pompous, why not confront the arguments presented?
The rest of us will live in reality of competing perspectives, unaffected by the cancel culture mentality that seeks to shout down or shame others who disagree.
I thank everyone who has shared their good faith opinions on this board, refusing to variously characterize people who disagree as being snobs, ignoramuses, or otherwise unworthy of having a voice.
On behalf of INGSOC, I thank you.