|
|
It appears there is some flawed logic in assuming 2 homes per acre is going to slow growth. It is true there will be a few less homes in a subdivision with 2.0 per acre vs 2.3, 2.6 or whatever but that doesn't mean the growth will slow down at all!
Take a look at Spring Creek (2/acre) at the corner of Milnor and Refugee. I drove past it yesterday and saw no less than 12 homes either being framed or in some version of pre-siding. I know there are many more there in various phases of construction.
2/acre will do nothing to slow growth without a true growth management plan in place. A builder could build $150K homes on 2/acre - might not be the most profit they could realize but it's still quite plausible.
By Oz
|
|
|
|
|
|
So... what you are saying
Nobody said two homes per acre is the answer, quite to the contrary, much less than two homes per acre would help because if you spread the decimal point difference over the thousands of acres slated to develop, it turns into many hundred fewer homes which equals many hundreds fewer students. Nobody said growth management should not be pursued here to my recollection either, to the contrary it should be aggressively encouraged and in fact an entire election result hinged on such a platform. I think that will continue in the Township election.
The neighbors of the new development proposed at Tollgate and Refugee want no more than 1.37 homes per acre like the Violet Meadows development on SR 204. If they want to put a $150,000 home on that lot OK, if they want to put a $500,000 home on that lot OK, the overall impact on the schools will be reduced if fewer kids are generated from each acre. Higher value would be desired, but the school people stated that the break even point for paying for one student is a valuation of near $750,000 per home, that would be OK too but we are realists.
Even with a low density of 1.37, it will still look quite different than the surrounding rural land and tht will impact the valuation and desireability of that area. If that is not enough the residents will once again have to shoulder the burden of the taxes to pay for the infrastructure to service this development, and the developers will be long gone when this bill comes due.
|
|
|
Interesting
Is it possible that those people who were residents in Violet Township before your house/subdivision was built now feel the same about your arrival?
|
|
|
They felt bad too
I see the old drawbridge... slam the door arguement is launched. First, I do not live in a subdivision, second anybody who markets what I bring to this community, ie support for good schools, quality of life etc, ie developers who market this community, had better be ready to give back to the community at a higher level than they have in the past because we have to give back to the community at an astoundingly spiraling rate.
Remember, they can build the same boxes (homes) in any school district, on any piece of land, say like Columubus or Groveport, why don't they? ....The market is here and I am part of the market whether my family has been here for 20 years or 150 years. Use me and the quality of life here to market your homes and support your family,..... then I want a fee is is only fair! I also think you should not destroy what we came here for, what others want to come here for and if this uncontrolled development continues, it will be destroyed... restraint imposed by government officials is necessary so that everyone who is here and will come can enjoy a decent quality of life.
The difference is now people are tired of being taken and speak up. They had the same chance in 1970 on up but perhaps did not do it in the same way.
|
