Voters to choose between two council candidates

FAYETTEVILLE — The City Council member representing the northeast part of town wants a second term, while a frequent participant at council meetings wants the seat.

Incumbent Sarah Bunch faces Peter Tonnessen in the Ward 3, Position 2 race. Ward 3 includes College Avenue north of Township Street, Crossover Road north and southwest of Mission Boulevard, Root School, Butterfield Elementary, Gulley Park and Lake Fayetteville.

Council members earn $1,042 per month and serve four-year terms. The positions are nonpartisan.

The election is Nov. 3. The Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette emailed the same questions to the candidates. Their responses are below. QUESTION: What’s your take on the idea of infill development (the concept of developing vacant or underused land within urban areas of a city)?

Bunch: It’s very tricky navigating our city’s need for new housing with the desires of an existing neighborhood and a landowner’s right to develop their property. Infill, whether it involves a small lot or several acres of land, is usually met with some resistance, usually coming from neighbors.

Neighbors frequently have concerns infill development will reduce their property values, cause traffic congestion or destroy green space. Another concern is neighbors fear new development will not be aesthetically compatible with existing neighborhoods. These can all be valid concerns.

Yet, Fayetteville still needs more housing, especially moderately priced homes, and residential infill can provide that housing. However, I don’t believe infill can just be slapped down anywhere. Since infill usually starts with rezoning to allow higher density, when I consider a rezoning request I value it on its individual merits.

Typically I favor a more gentle approach to infill that focuses on smaller-scale projects. For instance, I support accessory dwelling units, both attached and detached, and feel they are a great way for a homeowner to contribute additional housing that should fit well into a neighborhood while possibly making rental income off the unit. Tonnessen: Infill is an insidious threat to landownership, homeownership and individual rights.

Infill forces high-density, low-income housing like ‘cluster pods’ into established neighborhoods. This undermines home values and defeats personal preferences for neighborhood and lifestyle.

Euclidean zoning establishes expectations to protect property rights. Infill does the opposite. Infill defeats the expectations of landowners. It replaces citizens’ judgments with decisions imposed by Socialists and city-planner bureaucrats.

Property represents more than wealth. People without property depend on the charity of a feudal lord or government. Property ownership is the foundation of freedom.

Infill was a whisper in City Plan 2030, but is the dominant theme in Draft City Plan 2040.

Infill is ‘spot zoning,’ which is unlawful because it is arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional under Euclid v. Amber Realty.

Infill has never been submitted for voter approval. Draft City Plan 2040 was based on an unscientific ‘sampling’ of ‘respondents’ plus an ‘infill matrix’ giving a veneer of scientific legitimacy to an arbitrary exercise of bureaucratic power.

Respondents supported infill citywide, but not in their own neighborhood. They supported ‘a single building type’ if it was ‘similar with existing neighborhood structures.’ Ninety-four percent agreed ‘neighborhood continuity’ was important.

There is no public support for using infill to change neighborhoods. Fayetteville is driving construction away to neighboring towns.

QUESTION: What direction should the city take transportation-wise? Tonnessen: Follow the lead of the free market, which expresses the will of the people.

So long as Americans continue to buy and travel by automobiles, governments must provide streets. Henry Ford’s automobile has been the greatest engine for freedom of movement and upward mobility in history. Ford doubled workers’ pay because he realized they needed disposable income to buy his cars.

Build good streets. Bike paths are fine where they fit, but taking on the expense of maintaining U.S. 71B to build bike lanes was financially irresponsible.

The city’s Energy Action Plan reported that per capita carbon emissions dropped 11% from 2010 to 2016. Fayetteville has 1/100,000th of the world’s population. The idea that our automobiles drive global warming while 1.4 billion Red Chinese continue to build 300 new coal-fired power plants is idiotic.

Massive investments in mass transportation are premature. Ridership averages six people in buses built for 30 to 60 passengers. Fayetteville is not New York City and hopefully never will be.

Fayetteville pays Ozark Regional Transit $532,228, more than any other city and second most per capita, and pays fare subsidies almost twice as large. ORT’s ridership was declining two years in a row two years ago. Their website does not show operating statistics since July 2018.” Bunch: We have a problem with speeding citywide, and speeding is the most common complaint I receive from citizens citywide. Slowing down traffic makes good sense because it creates streets that are safe both for motorists and pedestrians.

Safety in, and near, school zones is a top priority for me because I want children to have a safe way to walk to and from school. I supported a new stoplight at Rolling Hills Drive and Old Missouri Road because it would achieve the two goals of reducing speed on Rolling Hills and adding a crosswalk to Butterfield Trail Elementary.

Another project soon to be in the works will improve the intersection of Old Missouri and Old Wire roads by adding a stop light and crosswalk. Children, and other pedestrians/cyclists in the Gulley Park neighborhood, can have a safe connection to get to school, shopping or the trail system, but it also means those in the Rolling Hills area have a safe connection to Gulley Park. For motorists it means the safety of a turn signal and hopefully reduced speeds.

If I’m reelected, I plan to continue to work on improving east/west routes where possible and taking measures to reduce speeding in our neighborhoods.

QUESTION: What would be your city budget priorities over the next few years?

Bunch: “So much of the city’s budget depends on salestax revenue, and this revenue stream has really been affected by covid-19. It’s projected our sales tax will decline in the foreseeable future, and this will surely mean some belt-tightening for our city. I favor a conservative approach to spending, especially for new projects not already budgeted.

In the next few years, I believe it is vital we maintain our reserves and dip into those as little as possible. We will need to focus on keeping bond projects moving along smoothly to ensure we limit cost overruns as well. I feel we are in a good position to weather this downturn, and I would not support any additional taxes at this time.

Tonnessen: Priority No. 1 in terms of urgency would be to build the police headquarters now. Build the headquarters as designed by Chief Mike Reynolds and the expert architects, without delay and without further interference from anti-cop know-nothings and Socialist nitwits.

My abiding priority No. 1 would be to balance every budget.

Priority No. 2 would be to ensure that all major financial commitments are decided by a majority of all registered voters based on simple, clearly worded referenda issues presented to all the voters in general elections.

There should be no more so-called ‘special’ elections, except in cases of genuine emergency. For example, there would be no more ‘special’ elections to decide 11 bond issues totaling one-quarter of a billion dollars, ‘special’ elections, which were cynically calculated to disenfranchise almost 90% of registered voters so that huge amounts of longterm debt could be incurred by a tiny fraction of Fayetteville’s taxpayers.

Priority No. 3 would be to reduce the tax burden on citizens.

Priority No. 4 would be a comprehensive, long-term approach to water and sewer infrastructure.

Priority No. 5 would be to improve streets and transportation. Note: Priorities 4 and 5 are related.

Priority No. 6 would be solid waste disposal, recycling and landfills.