On the day
before Thanksgiving in 2005, I sat in the office of Jozus, Milardo,
and Thomasson, one of the quaint looking law offices on Main Street
in an old Colonial house with a white picket fence in front. For a
few hours, I signed papers with my spouse at my side. At the end of
the signature blitz, I walked away the proud owner of a 1,000-square
foot house on the south end of High Street near Pike's Ravine by the
corner of Beach Street. Later that night, I travelled to visit family
for the holiday, and my husband stayed home and he and a friend spent
Thanksgiving day ripping moldy shag pink carpet out of the entire
house, bathroom and kitchen included. Liberty Bank was my mortgage
lender, and also my neighbor. Their executive office building sits
behind my house, and my house is bordered on two sides by their
parking lot. My driveway is behind the house, and I get to it from an
access road that has a shared right-of-way between the bank and the
seven 1950s ranch houses along this stretch. It's an unusual set up
for a residence.
When I
outgrew the apartment where I lived on College Street for six years
and decided to buy a house, I wanted a small house that would be easy
to maintain, and sidewalks. I would not buy any house that didn't
have a sidewalk in front of it, or that was too far to walk downtown.
I wanted to remain in or near the downtown neighborhood, but I had no
interest in renovating a house, becoming a landlord, or having extra
space that I didn't need. There aren't too many small houses around
this part of town, so when one became available, I jumped at the
opportunity.
At the house
closing, I learned that Liberty Bank had approached the previous
homeowner about purchasing the property. The bank wanted to raze the
house and expand their parking lot, but the application was denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission earlier that year by a very close
divided vote. The denial stood despite the fact that a prior special
exception had been approved and was on file. At that time, I wasn't
in tune or involved with local politics or municipal happenings, and
I didn't have any idea about this zoning application or the fact that
it was debated during two public hearings. This became a unique part
of the history of my property, and it was such an interesting and
happy ending to the deal closing to be informed of this as the keys
were handed to me.
This was a
wonderful entree into the neighborhood. After we moved in, several
neighbors made a point of stopping by to welcome us to the
neighborhood and to tell us how relieved they were that the bank had
not succeeded in their efforts. Not only would the bank have replaced
a house with an asphalt parking lot, there was also speculation that
the expansion of their frontage along High Street would have opened
the door to adding a new curb cut and a driveway that would connect
through to the rear access road. This would have impacted traffic. In
addition to the thankful neighbors, we were also visited by the
bank's friendly property manager who said “No hard feelings!”
with absolute sincerity. He chatted with my husband, who tells me now
that the property manager conceded that it was probably all for the
best that the parking lot application was denied.
I never read
the official record of this until now. I was able to find Planning
and Zoning meeting minutes on www.MiddletownPlanning.com.
I learned that many people who were strangers to me at the time, but
are now my friends and neighbors, spoke in opposition to the parking
lot expansion, notably one guy named Ed McQueen and alternately
recognized as Ed McCune. (So much for accuracy in the public record.
And I think it's kind of a well-known joke around town that nobody
knows how to spell or pronounce Ed's last name, but McQueen is a new
one). While this property is a mile away from Ed's back yard, he
recognized and spoke out about a bad plan, as Ed is wont to do.
Thanks to all the neighbors and activists whose voices were so
important in keeping my house a part of the neighborhood I would join
shortly thereafter, a Happy Thanksgiving indeed.
In the seven
years I've lived here, I've never seen the bank's parking lot come
anywhere close to maximum capacity of cars. I can't imagine what
their rationale was or why they thought more parking was needed. The
bank tried to justify their position with numbers – how many
employees, how many parking spaces available. But while their numbers
made sense on paper, they did not match the reality of the situation
in the half-empty lot. And all those people who spoke out against it
expressed valid reasons for why it would harm the area.
I bought my
house knowing full well that it was on a main road, surrounded by a
parking lot, and had a commercial building across the back yard.
Residences and commercial properties can coexist peacefully as we do
in my neighborhood. But when the perceived needs of one are pitted
against another, things can get ugly.
Last
week when so many people showed up at P&Z to decry the
proposed MX zoning text change, Attorney Ralph Wilson made some
concluding comments toward the end of the night and he said that the
opposition is driven by fear. I suspect that back in 2005 when the
bank parking lot was debated, the arguments might have been similar.
Accusing residents of being afraid of change is just a way of hiding
behind the fact that there is no good reason to be in favor of the
proposed change. There is not one shred of fact-based evidence to
suggest that the proposed MX
zoning text change can bring any actual long-term benefit to the
Middletown population as a whole. The parties in favor have not
backed up their arguments with any substance of fact, study,
analysis, or other documentation. Staff comments say “The proposed
language could allow a higher quality of development than what exists
now.” There is no substantiation of this claim, no explanation of
what this means, or what is considered “high quality” development
versus “low quality” development. This is a broad and
unsubstantiated, irresponsible summary judgement.
This
glaring error was recognized by neighbors, who of course are
accused of NIMBY syndrome, but many of those opposed identified
themselves saying they are not nearby residents but still felt
compelled to speak out against this proposal. One of the neighbors,
Jennifer Proto, obviously a skilled analyst with impressive
credentials, masterfully picked apart any argument that the zoning
change could bring any more financial benefit to the city than
existing residences could.
Forty people
spoke out against the proposed change, with many more opponents
present who did not speak, while there was a glaring absence of
anyone to speak in favor of it besides a few, most of whom have a vested interest. Attorney Wilson's last
word tactic was to accuse opponents of being afraid of change. The
very people he accused are the ones who have initiated and effected
changes to the downtown neighborhood in the form of owner occupancy,
rehabilitation, and revitalization. These are people who see
potential, not in the form of dollars, but in the form of community.
These are the people who walk everywhere they need to go, because
Middletown is already walkable. The very people that Attorney Wilson
accused of being afraid of change are the people who welcome new
neighbors and build community every day. The very people that
Attorney Wilson accused of being afraid of change are actually people
who most embrace change. Change is a good thing, because the opposite
of change is stagnation. But there is a big difference between fear
of change and fact-based knowledge that a proposed change is a
terrible idea.
Thank you Karen, for writing this and for protesting the MX zoning text change. Over 100 people were there to protest and many more would have been there if they could have. Thank goodness people saved your home. Thank goodness people take the time to protest bad ideas. Maybe we can save Middletown from this debacle!
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing back the memory of fighting Liberty Bank's blacktop desires.
ReplyDeleteYour point about fearmongering is well taken, especially from a lawyer who said that Centerplan needs to expand. They want to expand. But if they can't expand in Middletown they might have to make other plans.
I'd be happy if Centerplan took their ball and went home.
Ed McQueen
Speaking of fear- it was not right that those in favor as according to rules is how it is done for a reason, were told to speak last because others had "families" according to Ed McKeon. This prevented many from speaking in favor out of intimidation.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:42
ReplyDeleteIt was a strange and new set of rules that were set at the public hearing. Typically, members of the public, for or against, are not segregated into groups. So, we were all taken off guard when the chairman declared that those in favor would speak first, and those opposed, second.
Of course, that was reversed, and still odd, since I requested the first-come, first-served approach that is typically used.
Not sure who you were talking about in terms of intimidation - you, yourself? And how is it that you, or those known to you, might be intimidated by people with families?
I truly doubt there were many, beyond the five who spoke in favor of the change, who were actually going to speak.
I think you need to address your complaint to the P&Z. But I doubt they pay much attention to anonymous complaints with hypothetical tales of intimidation.
Maybe if you could name a person or two who was intimidated, or provide your own name.
My name is Ed, what's yours?
A well and feelingly stated piece, which brings to mind the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix."
ReplyDeleteWho is clamoring that the current MX zone is broken?
Only those who stand to make a buck by the change.
I'm all for making an honest buck, but as the article says, where's the demonstrated need for the change in the law?
To the argument that the proposed change isn't big, one response is, even a small change should have some justification.
To the argument that opponents are afraid of change, one response is that the argument is ad hominem.
If the opponents were all axe murderers, it wouldn't mean a particular proposed change is justified.
I respect Mr. Wilson and the principals of his client Centerplan.
I see no evil in their attempt to run a business and make a profit within the law.
But they still have to make a positive, affirmative case for their particular proposal.
Saying "growth" and "moving forward" isn't a case.
All that is before you come to the case against it, which that it would set back the fragile but growing movement toward an ever more livable, walkable, residential downtown component.
That's growth, too.
To quote a former president, Ed - there you go again.
ReplyDelete