Fairhope, Alabama
Update: The city council passed the ordiance for a 12 month moratoruim effective as soon as it is published in the local newpaper of record.
BUILDING MORATORIUM PROPOSED
Details are still sketchy at the moment, but Monday the city council will consider enacting a moratorium on applications for new subdivisions and multiple occupancy projects, outside city limits in the city's planning jurisdiction:
"Ordinance - An Ordinance of the City of Fairhope to Protect the Health, Safety, and General Welfare of the People relating to Subdivision Regulations, and Declaring a Moratorium of the Filing of Subdivision and Multiple Occupancy Project Applications outside the City Limit within the Planning Jurisdiction; and any real property that annexes into the City during the Moratorium shall also be subject to the Moratorium."
 |
| Planning jurisdiction in green. |
Comments
Let Daphne build all the new apartments.
Two in our household, but to discount our point of view on that basis is to succumb to the No True Scotsman logical fallacy, among others (e.g. ignoratio elenchi, tu quoque, etc.)
Unsustainable growth affects quality of life for all who live here. At precisely which year, date, and time would you set the cutoff for those about whose quality of life we may care?
Planned projects be damned, I would freeze all projects where a shovel has not broken dirt......developers will have to wait.
“Unsustainable growth affects quality of life for all who live here. At precisely which year, date, and time would you set the cutoff for those about whose quality of life we may care?”
Well at least you admit to contributing to the very problem you complain about. Talk about logical fallacy!
I believe the message being delivered loud and clear is no more residential growth in Fairhope. I still do not understand why the City needs additional revenues. Only explanation is a select few are profiting.
Actually I’m the first chromosome.
The city has had the tools to check this growth for many years (via reliance on State and Federal regulations regarding pollution (especially effluent) runoff into the Bay, but successive administrations and councils have failed to act responsibly to safeguard Fairhope's long term interests.
Everyone acts in their own interests. I expect developers want to develop, Chamber of Commerce members want to promote business, and people moving to Fairhope just want a better life for themselves and their families.
Yet, who can we expect to act in the general and long-term interests of Fairhope? Who has the vision to plan for environmentally and socially sustainable growth, and then spine to implant and back up that plan.
Who will ensure that developer and new developments pay the full cost of needed infrastructure and school upgrades to accommodate their projects. Who will ensure that the Chamber of Commerce incorporates quality-of-life into the promotional process. Who will make sure that the type of families Fairhope attracts are contributing to improving the area rather than simply moving to take advantage of its benefits over surrounding areas.?
I fear it is far too late but a comprehensive approach )as opposed to our current stop-gap compartmentalized ) might mitigate Fairhope inevitable decline.
It is easy to point fingers and blame some of the institutions I have identified above (and their are many others responsible for Fairhope's current perils), but knee-jerk blathering about environmentally and socially sustainable growth (typically wrapped in anti-capitalist rhetoric ) is equally impotent and unhelpful. It is easy to "deconstruct" our woes. It takes little talent. It is much harder to construct — but construct responsibly.
Growth is inevitable and Fairhope's decline in terms of quality-of-life has already begun. The question before us — and I offer no easy answer — is what type of city and are do we want to be 10 or 20 years from now?
Do we still want to be a place where people leave their doors unlocked, or will we face the increase in crimes of all types sure to accompany unplanned growth? Do we want good schools for our children and ample recreational facilities for our citizens, or do we want something less? Will we be proud of the Fairhope we construct, or lament all the was lost?
Every citizen need to engage in this issue so that we can achieve the best and most balanced consensus possible.
The things to do now are vote in favor of zoning and encourage the planning department and council to be as tough as possible on SD approvals. That includes lowering units/acre as much as permissible.
You were right, he/she doesn’t get it!
Discuss the merits of the argument, rather than armchair psychoanalysis.
Exactly. Otherwise, we're just fighting each other rather than addressing the problem.
I don't care when somebody moved here; they might have brought with them some specialized knowledge from which we all can benefit. If nothing else, they can vote, and I don't see the point of kicking them in the shins if they vote for slower, smarter growth.
Not even internally consistent. Sad.
Your inability to understand or accept another’s opinion is not an excuse to attack the person.
Attacking the person, very sad!
The majority of the homes being built have major issues. Concrete not cured long enough, lumber sits out in the rain, roofing put on in the rain, codes not met, inspections not being conducted, etc. Cheap built homes jammed into little lots in fields is a major problem. Water runoff issues, pollution in ground and waterways, way too much for all infrastructure, roads, land fill, etc. All about greed of a few at the cost of many. Time to move.
New York City if you chose to move that far.
Safe travels…