I carefully re-read Jordan Green’s detailed-packed Yes! Weekly article.

The question seems to be just how much influence county commissioners Linda Shaw and Mike Winstead have on the city council. It’s a logical assumption they do, given the family way here in Greesnboro. But it works both ways, considering the fact that the city directed funds toward Commissioner Skip Alston’s project, the International Civil Rights Museum, which has been in the news quite a bit these days. I do see the concerns made by some regarding the council’s potential inability to make a decision due to too many council members having a stake in the case. But based on the information Green presents, I don’t see why council member Robbie Perkins would have to abstain from voting when it comes before the council next month.

As for developers sitting on elected bodies, they don’t get there what we don’t vote them there. Perkins ran at-large against a couple of fine non-developers, but there he is on the council again. As for Winstead, he’s up for re-election this year, so any District 7 voters uncomfortable with his land dealings can try to vote him out.

Colorful personalities aside, a couple of things n the article jumped out at me. In many ways, opposition to the three cases in question just don’t make sense. “Wetlands” were an issue on the Friendly Avenue site. OK, there’s a pond there, but I’m confused about the further evidence of wetlands presented by Hillside Homes resident Robert Kinard:

City planning reports note the “possibility of wetlands on the site,” which features a pond slated to be reduced in size to make room for the apartment buildings. Kirnard said he is certain the site should be considered a wetlands area. Evidence of that, he says, is an 84-foot pier sunk under the foundation of a second house he owns on the western perimeter of the site proposed for rezoning. Kirnard said representatives of Mega Builders seemed surprised to learn of the wetlands. The city does not make a site visit to ascertain whether there are indeed wetlands, but instead notes the possibility and advises the developer to fill out the proper permits with the state, said Virginia Spillman, who works in the city’s storm water division.

I also find city opposition questionable regarding two other developments, SRJ’s apartment complex on West Wendover Ave….

In recommending denial, planning staff indicated that the requested RM-16 classification was a poor fit for the area, noting that it “is the highest density residential district in the city and is generally intended for more urban areas such as the downtown area that encourage taller buildings that are easily accessible to pedestrians and vehicles alike. This site, located on the city’s western fringe, does not have such a logical connection.”

…..and Roy Carroll’s Imington Village off Interstate 40 and Business 85:

…..the city’s planning staff recommended against rezoning the property from a mixed-use corporate park to a high residential classification, contending that “the proposal does not promote orderly growth on the city’s fringe” because the development “is not located in relative proximity to jobs and services that would allow for pedestrian connections or public transit options.”

I’m not sure it makes sense to hold developments on the city’s fringe to the same standards as those in the center city. They’re just not the same thing. It’s also not that easy to develop closer to the center city, no matter what people might think. Yes, there’s been progress, but there are also quite a few projects that have just gone by the wayside. Carroll evidently is going to make Centre Pointe work, but for some reason things aren’t woking out for him on the corner of Battleground Ave. and Hill St. And if you’re having disputes with neighbors down Friendly Avenue, they’re will only be more closer to the city’s core.

So if it’s tough on developers to build in the center city, and planners won’t let them build on the fringes, then where are they supposed to build?