City's Housing vision concerns trade groups

|tab|

Home builders in Springfield think the Neighborhood Elements Plan of Vision 20/20 is downright unneighborly.|ret||ret||tab|

Members from three associations representing home builders, real estate sellers and rental property landlords were to present their ideas for reforming the document at a March 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. At that meeting the commission is set to review the document and consider recommending it to City Council for approval. Members of the West-Central Neighborhood Alliance were also opposed to many of the document's proposals. |ret||ret||tab|

The Home Builders Association, Springfield Apartment & Housing Association and the Springfield Board of Realtors were sending representatives to the meeting to oppose the document in hopes that it could be tabled for further review.|ret||ret||tab|

"We basically don't think the city should be involved in the design of homes. That should be something the marketplace dictates," said Stephanie Stenger Montgomery, who chairs the HBA's Planning and Development Committee.|ret||ret||tab|

Brendan Griesemer, principal planner with the city, said the element plan is an "idea document" and that its tenets will not become policy as soon as the document is approved by City Council.|ret||ret||tab|

"This is just stating the vision for the future and that city actions could help achieve some of these measures over time. If the document is adopted, it is just as a guide. It is just a toolbox of ideas that could be used over time," Griesemer said, adding that it, is a 20-year plan. Vision 20/20 is a city initiative that asked focus groups to address specific concerns for Springfield's future. City Council has adopted other elements of Vision 20/20, including those regarding parks and center city.|ret||ret||tab|

Montgomery and others said they realize the document will not become policy as soon as it is adopted, but they fear the message it sends about the city's path.|ret||ret||tab|

"This is a vision of what Springfield should look like in the future, but we don't think the city should determine what Springfield should look like in the future," Montgomery said.|ret||ret||tab|

The plan first went to Planning and Zoning July 15 and was to have been forwarded to council, but public outcry brought it back to staff for more work, and then returned it to Planning and Zoning. |ret||ret||tab|

One of the opponents' major points of concern with the document is the detailed attention to housing design, suggesting that garages be set back a minimum of five feet from a house, for example, and encouraging minimum widths for sidewalks and streets. |ret||ret||tab|

Montgomery and Jack Pugh, president of the West Central Neighborhood Alliance, expressed concern with a portion of the document that recommended code inspections at the time of sale. The document states: "investigate the appropriateness of a requirement in Springfield that would identify key health/safety code items for inspection (would not apply to all building codes)."|ret||ret||tab|

"Who's going to buy or sell a home that has to be up to inspection right on the spot?" Pugh said, adding that such a provision would be detrimental to older neighborhoods where individuals are undertaking and groups such as his neighborhood association are encouraging redevelopment efforts.|ret||ret||tab|

"Normally, when a buyer purchases an older home, then he or she knows what's wrong with that home, and the price reflects that. If the building has to be up to code before the sale, then that will place considerable burdens on both buyer and seller," said Lynn Richards-Ludwig, executive director of the Springfield Apartment & Housing Association.|ret||ret||tab|

Richards-Ludwig said she is also concerned about a provision of the document suggesting a housing court should be developed, outside the current system, to investigate city building codes violations.|ret||ret||tab|

"What does outside the current system' mean? Outside due process? The system we have now works, and if it isn't broken, there is no need to fix it," Richards-Ludwig said.|ret||ret||tab|

Though Richards-Ludwig and Montgomery said they hoped the document would be tabled for more study, Pugh said it should be put away permanently.|ret||ret||tab|

"This is an absurd document. I think we ought to start anew with something else," Pugh said.|ret||ret||tab|

An update will appear in the March 27 issue of SBJ.|ret||ret||tab|

[[In-content Ad]]