Keep the open space off South Meadows Road

We are asking planning commissioners and the City Council that privately owned land designated for infill development be considered a priority over the development of an underserved community’s planned publicly owned open space.

Our Southwest Area Master Plan, considered a backbone to the master plan, with hundreds of hours of community participation, has included the allowance of infill for residential mixeduse and high-density projects without any opposition. We are doing our part — we planned for development that has contributed to the growth of the city, including affordable housing. We also planned for that development by creating and purchasing designated open space with taxpayer bonds, for sustainability and health of our community.

It is valid and reasonable that we continue to engage in the process of planning our community, especially since this is a horrific case of spot zoning. Neighborhoods that have clients of Homewise living in them and homes that are more affordable than the ones proposed are not NIMBYs, despite claims by supporters of the development. City officials should not tolerate this sort of behavior or attitude toward its constituents.

The city and county have badly mishandled annexation. We believe the county didn’t follow policies specific to selling public land, which include holding two public meetings prior to a decision to sell, never giving our community the opportunity to have this conversation without the pressure of a developer, who is getting a ripping deal on the land and has everything to gain from its development.

The city declined the county’s offer to give them the land with allotted funds for improvements. With annexation, the open space maintenance should fall to the city; parkland is considered infrastructure. The county and city have other properties they co-maintain, even though the county owns the property and it is in the city’s boundaries.

However, the city “cannot afford maintenance for another park” so it declined ownership? The city still can’t afford to maintain another park, yet

Homewise is proposing a high-maintenance park and donating it to the city. Preliminary review estimated that Homewise’s proposed park would cost the same in maintenance as the 22-acre open space plan completed by the county.

How is it not a park? Underdeveloped, incomplete, sure, but it is parkland! The city doesn’t have a zoning label for parks; all are zoned as residential. Homewise proposes baseball, an outdoor classroom, active structures, basketball courts; the completed open space development plan also offers an outdoor classroom, dog park, community garden, games called Nature Play, natural and paved trails. It also calls for preservation of the native ecosystem.

Features can be revised by what our community wants, with play structure nodes included. Designated as open space, residents have the opportunity to partner with nonprofits to adopt its maintenance. We can find funding for improvements, but only if it stays publicly owned, designated open space. Homewise is proposing to build on 17 acres of parkland in a district severely underserved in parks — they can spin it how they like, but that’s the truth. Allowing rezoning of this property takes away any opportunity District 3 has to obtain social equality.

Janette Smith is a lifelong resident of Acres Estates subdivision.