|
Home Page |
 |
|
 |
Our Info
Contact Us Join Us Our Newsletter Hit Report |
|
|
|
|
|
Interactive Areas
Calendar Discussion Area Member Pages |
|
|
|
|
|
Find Answers in Our FAQ |
|
|
Friends of Historic Glasgow (Delaware) Discussions History Shorchanged in New CDP 2-2-2007 The body of the new Comprehensive Development Plan fails to live up to the vision laid out in Chris Coons' cover letter. While the plan makes some steps toward that vision, those steps are mere baby steps. The reality is nowhere near as bold as Mr. Coons would have us believe. What is wrong with the plan? It is based on an assumption of a certain level of continued growth: nearly 100,000 new residents will come to New Castle County by 2030, so we must build to accommodate them. Rather than positing lower growth scenarios, the County is left with a reality largely advocated by development interests. Because developers want to accommodate tens of thousands of new inhabitants, that is how the plan is written. It comes across quite clearly in the CDP that pro-development interests continue to control what happens in New Castle County. Realizing that land, especially land north of the C&D Canal, is becoming scarce, the plan calls for redevelopment of existing neighborhoods, infill, and other high-density approaches. These ideas are presented as the most reasonable option. Thus, protections for existing neighborhoods and existing resources, along with other strictures to maintain quality of life for current residents are largely ignored or given lip service though the use of words like ''consider'' or ''investigate.'' Looking in detail at just the historic preservation part of the plan, the plan laments the demolition of more than 75 historic structures in the past five years. Yet the only new initiative proposed is one to clarify what is meant by ''context'' within the Unified Development Code, something the Historic Review Board already understands. The biggest threat to historic preservation has nothing to do with such clarifications. The biggest threat is the acquisition of historically designated properties by developers, who can then legally attack the existing historic designation as an impediment to their development rights. If the County wants to be serious about historic preservation, the CDP must propose a new UDC ordinance strengthening the power of the Historic Review Board and making existing historic designations much harder to overturn. Another area that is ignored is demolition by neglect--allowing an historic structure to deteriorate beyond the point of no repair, then claiming it is no longer worth saving. Although demolition by neglect is prohibited under current ordinances, the law is both weak and poorly enforced. In summary, the CDP document fails to thoroughly consider the adverse impacts that the envisioned development would cause, and fails to place reasonable restrictions on that development to protect quality of life. Without a serious effort to better address the adverse impacts of continued development, the proposed CDP will not protect the County’s existing historic resources nor its residents' quality of life. -By Dorcas Black |
|
Neighborhood Link Terms of Use
© 1997 - 2006 Neighborhood Link, Inc.