Camp number one: the conservatives. These are the folks who want Mayberry. They want the place to stay the bucolic ideal that they have in their minds, the town they grew up in, and the town they think they want their kids to grow up in. "We moved out here to escape the City," they say. They want wide, tree-lined streets and good schools and are usually strong property-rights advocates (ironically - more on that later). They want things to "stay the same" meaning, they don't want what they think will be detrimental to their way of life. Of course, if a new, bigger grocery store were to come in, no one would object to that! Or restaurants.
Camp number two: the progressives. These are folks who are from "outside". They are new-comers to the area and therefore lack the same sense of heritage and desire for preservation. They have come for many different reasons - work, schools, quality of life, etc. Usually they find things here that are very good and desire to stay long-term. But they also bring with them ideas that are disruptive (to say the very least) to what others want or think they want.
Large cities do not seem to deal with these kinds of camps in exactly the same way. There, there exists historic preservation boards and good, solid ordinances that regulate everything and in which developers and land speculators and construction types and planners all know their roles and usually adhere to them. It's often efficient and structured such that things are done properly and can move through the process quickly.
Smaller cities are much more organic (not to say chaotic...) in the way things get handled. Everything gets done at a much slower pace. New development is analyzed by the camps noted above according to their own perceptions and desires and goals. Conservatism wants sleepy, low-key development, while the progressives want new and exciting things to help them stay there and interested.
Development, however, is as inevitable as the tide. And tide-like, there are ebbs and flows - everything is in a constant state of motion and flux. As a result, it is difficult to know what is going to happen from one moment to the next in the ever-changing tidal basin that is land-use development. Planners try to channel the flows into constructive and positive means, and the best planners try to adhere to a set of professional and ethical norms while taking into account the needs and desires of the communities they serve. But the people are not united in their aims, and the development is not predictable. So how does all of this get resolved?
Conservatives (as mentioned above) ironically tend to be strong property-rights advocates - not that progressives are not, just not as strong. So it is ironic when a property owner wants to develop something that is contrary to some other goal that the conservatives have. Conservatism would declare that people should be able to do whatever they want on their property. But at the same time, there are things that are offensive to the morals of the community and are therefore regulated. And rightfully so. But when something comes in that is offensive but a legal exercise of property rights - what then? The dilemma that is introduced becomes one of property rights vs. regulation. Strict property rights advocates claim that the government has no role in regulating the use of land with the result that one's rights are infringed. Among those rights that property owners enjoy is the right to develop - the right to gain financially from their ownership of the property.
So the tide rolls in. It crashes against the bulwarks carefully erected to control and govern such a tide. And what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
6 comments :
Yes, I agree that it is difficult to please everyone...(I am assuming this blog is in reference to the apartments). In a small town, it is sad when property owners, that more than likely do not live in the area, are not worried about the effect that there vision will have on the small community. Their bottom line is money. This is their right, however. No matter how many blogs you post, I don't feel that you will change anyone's mind on the subject on the apartments. Everyone has a right to live where they please, but unfortunately we all know what can happen to apartment complexes, especially over time... By the way, as you know, apartment complexes are quite different from other commercial establishments, such as grocery stores and restaurants, from which a small town could benefit.
You are not going to change anyone's mind on the subject of the apartments, regardless of how you state it. A lot of the time, unfortunately, property owners do not live in the area in which they own their land and therefore, are not too concerned about how their decisions will impact the community. Let's be honest, they are motivated by money.
Grocery stores and restaurants are a lot different than apartment complexes, as far as their effect on a community! Honestly.
do you allow all comments to show on your blog or only the ones that agree with you?
We need to encourage businesses to be in mont belvieu. Inevitably, what will happen is that businesses will begin to build on 99, instead of in the city limits.
Community growth is fine. However, I don't think an apartment complex falls into the category of "new and exciting things to help them stay there and interested". I am not a native barbers hill man but I am not a newcomer either. I have been here long enough to see both sides. If you want to bring in growth then bring in something that benefits the community. You can say whatever you want, but apartments have never down anything but increase crime, routinely changed mgt, and quickly degraded from somewhat attractive buildings to foil windowed roach motels. Don't take my word for it. Just look at the complexes Baytown has erected in the last 10 years. Ask any Baytown cop where they respond to the majority of their calls. But, we're Barbers Hill, so I guess it will be different here. Keep dreamin'
Signed, the third group (Realists).
Hi! I haven't had the chance to comment lately but I also have strong feelings about the new apartment complex. I fall in the conservative group except that I hope that I am not hypocritical. The facts of the matter and your explanations are understood but history does show us that apartment complexes in any place decline with time. Some just take longer than others. The area and the apartments that are being built do not dictate high enough rents to prevent this from happening. But even "luxury" apartments will deteriorate. Also, this apartment complex is entirely to close to our schools. Some might think this a good thing but in the long run it is not.
Knowing that what I am saying is a day late and a dollar short, it would have been much better for this complex to not be on the main drag.
As I have stated before, I would like to keep Mayberry somewhat intact. I like getting in my car and driving to the Big City. But now the Big City is coming to me.
The reasons that I came to this area are quickly vanishing and that worries me. If we continue at this pace, Mayberry will be gone forever. And that will be a sad day in history.
Post a Comment