Northland NIMBYs

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 11:45 am

For an area that is growing rapidly, it seem there are an awful lot of NIMBYs in the Northland. Maybe only a fraction of those you would find in the core, but there is definitely a different attitude north of the river than in its rival, Johnson County.

Just today, there were two different stories in The Star about N'land NIMBYs and remember the amount of grief they gave to Steiner?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parkville residents drop fight

By MIKE SHERRY
The Kansas City Star

A group of Parkville residents has thrown in the towel in their fight against a developer.

More than 30 residents of the Pinecrest neighborhood agreed to withdraw the four-count complaint they filed in December. The Platte County lawsuit, which was dismissed March 29, sought to have a rezoning decision overturned.

Lead plaintiff Lisa Williams said her group lost its attorney and did not have the money to continue. â€œWe just ran out of options,â€

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:23 pm

trailerkid wrote:Maybe only a fraction of those you would find in the core, but there is definitely a different attitude north of the river than in its rival, Johnson County.

What type of difference are you talking about? In my opinion, Joco has more NIMBYs, and they are very well organized. For example, http://www.nbrhd.net

Almost every other month there's a story about people near Metcalf, 119th, 135th, etc. who are protesting Target et al. And they always seem shocked when retailers want to build near major streets or intersections. Duh, that's were they always build. Maybe think about that *before* buying your McMansion right next to a highway interchange.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:39 pm

Just looking at a map and driving through So Jo Co and West Jo Co, one would think there are no NIMBYs.

In the Northland, this stuff at Maple Woods would be a tiny drop in the bucket for what Jo Co has developed in the last few years. Where are the NIMBYs for the sprawling stuff on 135th? Hell, they're still building a damn 1,000,000 square foot mall there...only blocks from Town Center. Whatever they're doing isn't working or getting recognition.

The Northland damn near shut down a "new urbanist" development, much less a 1,000,000 sq. foot mall. I also think there is a difference between NIMBYs in established areas like Oak Park or Mission opposed to Maple Woods Parkway.

scooterj · Post by **scooterj** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:02 pm

The NIMBYs are there, they just lose more often than they win. (In most cases rightfully so, in my opinion.) They've tried to make Garmin build a sprawling campus instead of a mid-rise... they've fought Wal-Mart on 135th, they've tried to pass off 159th as not being an arterial road and tried to keep commercial development off it, etc. Figure out the pattern people... every 8th block in our grid is an arterial street and a likely candidate for commercial development. So don't move to one of those streets if you don't want traffic or commercial development nearby.

I'm not always anti-NIMBY though. Sometimes a city decided to change zoning next to a residential area and allow something in that all the residents were led to believe wouldn't happen. I have no issue with fighting one of those suburban softball parks with all their noise and bright lights being plopped down right next to a pre-existing neighborhood.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:27 pm

In addition to the current zoning, most cities have development plans that designate future zoning. So while an area may be zoned agricultural or whatever today, the city might have it lined up for commercial or industrial in the future. A lot of times the zoning doesn't actually change until someone comes forward ready to build something.

UMKCgal · Post by **UMKCgal** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:44 pm

Joco has its nimby's...I remember reading in the Shawnee Mission News a couple weeks ago that residents were petitioning to stop the city from putting sidewalks in their yards (55th terrace and south of that) and they were complaining that the city doesn't listen to them or whatever. I don't think this issue is over yet and don't find any problems with sidewalks. I say BRING IT ON!!! I forgot what their complaints were about sidewalks (those ppl are crazy

) and I remember there was a similar case in Prairie Village not too long ago too.

nota · Post by **nota** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:24 pm

[quote="trailerkid"]For an area that is growing rapidly, it seem there are an awful lot of NIMBYs in the Northland. Maybe only a fraction of those you would find in the core, but there is definitely a different attitude north of the river than in its rival, Johnson County.

Just today, there were two different stories in The Star about N'land NIMBYs and remember the amount of grief they gave to Steiner?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parkville residents drop fight

By MIKE SHERRY
The Kansas City Star

A group of Parkville residents has thrown in the towel in their fight against a developer.

More than 30 residents of the Pinecrest neighborhood agreed to withdraw the four-count complaint they filed in December. The Platte County lawsuit, which was dismissed March 29, sought to have a rezoning decision overturned.

Lead plaintiff Lisa Williams said her group lost its attorney and did not have the money to continue. â€œWe just ran out of options,â€

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:31 pm

nota wrote: The whole thing is poorly planned and bound to make more bottleneck traffic.

All of the willy nilly development should be planned rather than just let the developers do as they please.

Parkville government has prostituted itself to these developers long enough.

^^^^^This is exactly what I am talking about...NIMBY isn't a bad thing.

A booming KC surburb with residents actually in favor of limiting growth and long range planning for traffic, aethestics, etc.? Unheard of.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:54 pm

UMKCgal wrote:Joco has its nimby's...I remember reading in the Shawnee Mission News a couple weeks ago that residents were petitioning to stop the city from putting sidewalks in their yards (55th terrace and south of that) and they were complaining that the city doesn't listen to them or whatever. I don't think this issue is over yet and don't find any problems with sidewalks. I say BRING IT ON!!! I forgot what their complaints were about sidewalks (those ppl are crazy ) and I remember there was a similar case in Prairie Village not too long ago too.

Hey UMKCgal, help me protect that land between Highway 69, I-435, College Blvd. and Nieman Rd.

Post by **bahua** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 11:44 pm

I am all for stopping irresponsible development with protests and public opinion, but that won't stop it nearly as well as a land tax would.

UMKCgal · Post by **UMKCgal** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 11:21 am

Hey UMKCgal, help me protect that land between Highway 69, I-435, College Blvd. and Nieman Rd.

umm I'm all for the sidewalks so if your against it..then sorry.

Whether or not they actually do it, doesnt affect me much because I live in an apartment complex anyway.

QueSi2Opie · Post by **QueSi2Opie** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:38 pm

UMKCgal wrote:umm I'm all for the sidewalks so if your against it..then sorry. Whether or not they actually do it, doesnt affect me much because I live in an apartment complex anyway.

I don't care if they develop sidewalks or nature trails...jus' as long as they don't build more houses/apartments, offices or big box stores and restaurant chains on that land.

KCRag Forum