Wednesday, October 5, 2016
To the Editor:
In all the complaints about the “radical rezone” (like Janet Way’s, 10/4), I have yet to hear where exactly the complainers would prefer more density to occur, and why they think it would be better for the light rail line to dump its passengers out in a single-family home area. The only other rational areas of redevelopment with greater density are along Aurora and in North City, a mile or more from the future stations, totally impractical for the goal of having dense development close to mass transit. The worry over “piecemeal development” also seems misplaced. The only alternative would be systematic condemnation of properties in an expanding circle around the stations, which would probably be legally impossible because the ultimate use of the properties will be private rather than public.
Way complains that present homeowners will be “forced” to move to houses farther away. But if the redevelopment doesn’t happen, future area residents will themselves be forced to move farther away, magnifying the sprawl she says she wants to avoid.
Do these people actually oppose all redevelopment with greater density? Are they against the stations, or against light rail altogether? Do they refuse to recognize that they live in a growing urban area with limited land for homes and transportation? Where exactly do they expect future residents to live?
I’d like to see Janet Way’s own urban plan for the next 50 years, if she has one. I doubt it. This seems like a clear-cut case of NIMBYism.