Comment at 4/17 APC Hearing

I would like to speak in favor of the New Chauncey land use plan presented tonight.

I would like to speak in favor of the plan and to offer some words of thanks.

To Carl Griffin, whose idea it was to have the West Lafayette city council pass a resolution calling for a land use plan as a way of encouraging neighborhood preservation and guiding neighborhood redevelopment in this neighborhood we both call home.

To Sallie Fahey and Ryan O'Gara for their professionalism and their perseverance throughout this four year process.

To  Roland Winger and Tim Shriner for their assistance, following the initial inconclusive vote on the original land use plan, in reassembling the land use steering committee.  My personal thanks to Mr. Shriner for introducing me to the history of "stump town".

To Charlie Shook. Mr. Shook has done this community many a good turn. He did so again by tactfully moderating a renewed conversation between our friends who represented local commercial interests and the New Chauncey residents. This revised land use plan is a tribute to his skill.

To Jay McCann. Dr. McCann did a much better job than I ever could have in seeing to it that this plan made it back before you tonight. His talent as a political scientist extends beyond "book learning".

Finally, and most importantly, thank you to the next generation of my New Chauncey neighbors. You believe that this multi-class, multi-generational near campus neighborhood is as important an attraction for West Lafayette as any lake or mountain. Your ambition for this community is refreshing.

I may question Purdue's historic lack of interest in it's near campus neighbors, and the city's will or skill in shaping a near campus neighborhood like those enjoyed by so many other university communities. But I do not question the energy and determination of my younger neighbors, nor their desire to see this plan through the many years and severally stages of planning ahead (historic preservation, overlay zoning, the creation of the partnerships envisioned by the long awaited investment entity) to a successful conclusion.

My particular and heartfelt thanks to them. Without them we all might have been willing to settle for far less.

Thank you.

Raise the "Trash Tax"?

Last night by a 5 - 2 vote the West Lafayette City Council voted to raise the city's "trash tax". I am opposed to Ordinance 7 – 13.

The operative paragraph in this ordinance is #67-20; the 70% increase in the city trash fee.

1) Let’s be clear. This is a tax increase. Republican idealogues have made it impossible to raise revenue the old fashioned way, by raising property or income taxes.  Cities are left with few options for raising revenue. Raising fees is one of them.

Fee increases are essentially a regressive tax. They negatively impact the lower and middle classes. By January 1, 2014 your "taxes" will increase by $204. $200 a year is not all that much if you make $100,000 and may reasonable expect a pay increase. If you make $50,000 or $25,000 it is something else.

The diocese hasn’t raised my salary in two years. Purdue staff will not have a pay raise for the next two years. Yet here we have this increase. Perhaps if you have an attached, heated garage, for your garbage cans you don’t see what all the fuss is about. But my constituents have small urban lots, they park on the street, walk to work, own carports. Some of them know that you don’t book the “care-a-van” for the end of the month because they may have run out of money at Jenks Rest by then and could cancel your ride.

The Westside myth is that everybody has money. That’s not true.

2) This must be embarrasing, I’m sure for my Republican friends on city council. This is their third “tax” increase of the season. We have increased the cumulative capital tax, passed a stormwater tax, and now are considering this trash tax.

Should this pass on second reading, it gives me a great lead for the next round of campaign literature. “Bunder voted against the 70% increase in your trash tax.”

3) This must be embarrasing for a city administration that only a short while ago asserted that there was no reason to raise trash rates at all.  We were told that, in fact, trash collection and sewage processing were the same enterprise. Trash cans and toilet bowls were the same. . . . at least for purposes of the budget. The losses from trash cans, you see, can be made up from toilet bowls. The waster water surpluses would cover those costs.

But now it is after the election. Those surpluses are gone. John Polles was right. This is not about gasoline for garbage trucks, but general city revenue.

4) This ordinance is an embarrasment because it has surprisingly little to do with environmental issues. No one from the environmental commission was involved in its creation. That isn’t surprising. The operative paragraph is #67-20. One of my strongest memories from our last discussion of the trash ordinance was of having Councilor Hoggatt sitting to my right with a stack of research -  he loved research – this high. John asked the Mayor if he had read any of that stuff and the Mayor said “no”. Okay then . . .

West Lafayette does “okay” with trash and recycling. Gene Hanus tracks those numbers for Go Greener.

In 2012 the percentage of recycling (without the move-out dumpsters) was 26%. Count yard waste, you get to 42%. That’s the figure the Mayor used in his state of the city address to give us a “gold star”.  It is an interesting statistical choice. The percentage of recycling (with the move-out dumpsters) was 25%. Count yard waste, you get 40%. With the new recycling toters, Gene reports we are in the low 30% range. Given the resources available here in environmental science at Purdue, we should do better.

Nowhere in this revision is apartment recycling addressed. Our thanks to the J.C.Hart Co. for showing us how it might be done. Nowhere do we address the unwitting subsidy to the rental corporations my constituents bear each spring when we collect bulk refuse and construction materials for free from these corporations. 

Last night at city council we spent an hour amending the ordinance with great particularity, discussing such things as whether to "wash and rinse" or "rinse and wash" our recycling. The careful focus on minutiae apparently excuses us from examining how much we are paying to underachieve on recycling.

I am opposed to ordinance 7-13.

Bunder Opposition to APC Land Use Plan

My notes for the APC tomorrow night . . . even if you can't be there, remember they will read your comments into the record.  rogara@tippecanoe.in.gov   Ryan O'Gara

In 2009 I drafted the W.Lafayette city council resolution that called for the development of a land use plan for the New Chauncey Neighborhood.

While the technical work done by the APC staff toward this end is excellent, this process has been disappointing.

It has taken too long. Here in 2013, with the Wang Hall and Muinzer projects underway, the plan is less relevant.

It has valued commercial interests over voter interests. A number of the “stakeholders” included in the original steering committee melted away during the lengthy process. The membership became lopsided. Contrast this group to “Centennial’s” membership.

It has taken place without the promised mediation. This was crucial to the successful conversation undertaken by the neighborhood and the Purdue Research Foundation around the Wang Hall project.

Instead, the APC, with one would assume the blessing of the West Lafayette City government, at our second to last meeting, changed the previously touted rules on reaching an agreement from achieving consensus to a series of up/down votes on land use. The results were predictable.

So, after having wasted three or four years on this effort,  I seem to  have managed to reduce the R1-U portion of the New Chauncey neighborhood by 16% and achieved little else. A compromise? No; Jay McCann and I simply lost a bunch of votes.

I took a shot at “special” and got “typical”.

The development that is now envisioned in the block-by-block plan will fundamentally alter a neighborhood already stressed by new and denser development, and undermine the announced goal of neighborhood revitalization and preservation.

The planning process should be reopened. Or Barberry Heights, Hills and Dales, and Northwestern Heights forewarned.

McCann Opposition to APC New Chauncey Land Use Plan

I commend the APC for its efforts. However, the plan in its current form contains a major flaw that needs to be corrected before approval. In Chapter 4 (“Implementation”), the plan describes a strategy to “focus all residential density increases along the Northwestern and Fowler corridors” (p. 47). 

Each of the Steering Committee members, including myself, would undoubtedly support this statement. However, in the proposed land use map, we see significant increases in density extending far beyond what a reasonable person would consider a “corridor.” The APC reports that approximately one-sixth of the neighborhood that is currently oriented towards single-family homes would be given over to extensive higher-density development – a strikingly large portion of New Chauncey. 

Indeed, the western and southern parts of the neighborhood would no longer be envisioned as family-focused. Rather than seeking to renovate homes, many of which are historically significant, the emphasis in the proposed land use map is on tearing down and replacing with dense development in Blocks 1-15, 20-22, and 26-28. This is not the way to create and sustain a “community of choice” for family residents and students who prefer not to live in densely populated apartment complexes. 

The disconnect between the “implementation” statement on p. 47 and the proposed land use designations on p. 75 came about through a regrettable change in Steering Committee procedures. 

When I agreed to serve on the committee, it was with the understanding that the proposed land use plan would be a consensus document. This premise was reinforced in the third community forum on November 7, 2012, when both Loren King and I stressed to attentive but wary neighbors that no decisions would be taken without the full support of all six voting members, four of whom had substantial commercial interests in New Chauncey and two of whom were long-term residents. Unfortunately, at the most recent Steering Committee meeting the APC suspended the rule of consensus and assigned block designations through simple majority votes. 

This allowed the four committee members whose interests in the neighborhood are primarily financial to form into a majority voting bloc. In general, whenever there was a disagreement over the designation of a block – something that happened about 20-25% of the time – the outcome was to allow for higher densities. These decisions were nearly always determined through a 4-2 margin, with Peter Bunder, the other long-term resident on the committee, and me in the minority. 

There is an opportunity now to revise the land use map so that it conforms to the implementation statement on p. 47. Reject the current draft and allow the Steering Committee to revisit the issue of block densities, so that all residential density increases are truly focused “along the Northwestern and Fowler corridors.” If the Steering Committee is reconvened, a decision rule of unanimity should be reinstated. I would be happy to continue serving on this committee, and I anticipate that only one additional meeting would be necessary. 

This additional step would ensure that the outcome is perceived as fair and representative, not only to the New Chauncey community but also to residents in other parts of the city who are watching this planning process closely.

New Council Districts for 2015

New City Council Districts 2015

New District #2 2015

McCann/Bunder Report on Land Use

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, the New Chauncey Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee met for the last time to discuss land use. There were six voting members on this committee: two commercial property developers with major holdings and ongoing projects in and around New Chauncey; the owner of a near- campus bookstore; the owner of several student rental houses within the neighborhood, properties that had once been family-occupied; and we two, who represented long-term residents of New Chauncey. 

Membership slots on this committee were determined by the Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission. Ryan O’Gara of the APC convened meetings of the Steering Committee but did not vote.
Herein we report to NCNA the features of the proposed land use plan that will be most relevant for deliberations at its annual on December 8, 2012, a brief description of how the Steering Committee arrived at its decisions regarding future land use, and suggestions for moving forward towards a more constructive outcome. 

a. Decisions Taken in the November 28 Meeting
The most striking change that is envisioned for New Chauncey is the substantially more dense development in the southern and western portions of the community. Large buildings are anticipated, presumably to serve the student accommodations market. There is the rationale to “step down” in development from the southern and western edges of the neighborhood to the more residential areas, but this transition is quite gradual, so that higher-density developments will extend well into what are now lower-density living areas. 

These changes in land use, if implemented and acted upon, would fundamentally change the impression of much of the neighborhood and the quality of life. The recommendation from the Steering Committee is that the western and southern portions of New Chauncey should no longer be envisioned as family-focused – not now, not ever. Rather than seeking to renovate homes, many of which are historically significant, the emphasis would be on tearing down and replacing with dense development. To illustrate, one Steering Committee member who represented commercial interests expressed the desire to see the construction of a mall that is comparable to Wabash Landing along the Northwestern corridor. 

Such development would undoubtedly bring more traffic congestion to the neighborhood and make it more difficult to attract and retain long-term residents. Furthermore, the proposed land use plan would reinforce a model of “balkanization” within the community, i.e., “students belong here but they shouldn’t go there...community members belong there, not here...” Over the long-run, we believe a better vision for the community is an integrated framework, where students who wish to reside off-campus and long-term residents live together in well-maintained and attractive neighborhood blocks, much as it was in the post-war era when many of the historic homes of New Chauncey were built. As it stands now, the proposed APC plan undermines this vision. 

b. How We Got Here
When we agreed to serve on the Steering Committee, we were told that the objective was to create a consensus document, i.e., a vision that enjoyed unanimous support among the voting members. The four other committee members apparently shared this belief. In fact, one of the property developers on the committee announced at the third community forum on November 7, 2012, at the Morton Center that this principle of unanimity would be the basis of our decision-making. One of us (McCann) reinforced this point in a follow-up statement. Unfortunately, at one of the last Steering Committee meetings, the APC announced that decisions would instead be taken through majority vote as needed. This meant that the four committee members with major short-term commercial interests in the neighborhood could form a majority voting bloc. 

This is what happened in the final meeting. 

The anticipated use designations for approximately 20-25% of the blocks in New Chauncey were controversial. These blocks are located in the western and southern parts of the neighborhood. In the final committee deliberations, whenever there was disagreement over land use, committee members with a commercial stake in New Chauncey won, nearly always by a 4-2 margin. 

c. Recommendations for a Way Forward
There will be an opportunity for the public to respond to the APC land use plan. The residents of New Chauncey and surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the NCNA, should take the opportunity to comment on the proposed block designations. 

Furthermore, we encourage NCNA to oversee an alternative plan, one that will offer the “neighborhood community perspective on land use,” as opposed to the APC’s “commercial perspective on land use.”
It would be prudent for the Steering Committee to continue meeting, but with new members. This reconstituted committee should be balanced – three participants who are long-term residents plus three members who represent commercial interests strikes us as an appropriate design – with a rule of consensus on all outcomes. This new committee could then revisit land use issues with a fresh perspective. Such an exercise need not take years, or even months. With effective leadership and a constructive tone, committee deliberations might last only a few hours. 

We also advise communicating these concerns about neighborhood planning to the residents of other areas of West Lafayette, to Mayor Dennis, and to the City Council. 

On the horizon as well within the neighborhood is an historic preservation initiative. Through Ryan O’Gara, Chandler Poole, Director of Development for West Lafayette, communicated that the city is eager to implement this initiative, which will be an integral part of land use planning. NCNA and neighborhood residents should encourage the Historic Preservation Commission to finalize its business so that this initiative can take effect in a timely manner. 

We should stress that we acknowledge the need for community planning and long-term visioning, not only in New Chauncey but throughout the city. We must also emphasize that we are not opposed to commercial development. All neighborhood residents should take pride in the fact that our community is such a desirable place to live, work, play, study, worship, and invest in. Quite clearly, however, the land use plan that the APC proposes tilts far too heavily in the direction of large-scale commercial interests at the expense of long-range community enrichment. Many of the blocks currently designated for higher density development should instead be reserved for continued low-density homes.