1999…fast forward to today.
Presenting you with an image by artist Brian Garvey:
The artwork was created for an issue card that went out in 1999 for City Councilman Andy Ruff’s campaign for elected office at that time. It was a postcard. On the backside it began, “Unrestrained growth will only lead to more congestion, loss of precious green space, increased taxes, and greater safety concerns…” I like the image Brian created in light of the scene I witnessed at the courthouse last night: hordes of developers spun up about the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update.
Andy is a local politician who has remained steadfastly progressive and stuck to his campaign promises. Like County Commissioner Mark Stoops, he’s never fallen into the misguided notion that he has to pander to the developers. Following in this tradition, we have County Councilwoman Julie Thomas setting a similar record this year…and tonight in the City of Bloomington, City Councilman Dave Rollo is seeing the first presentation of the Peak Oil Task Force’s report to the Bloomington City Council. Mr. Fluck Mill was part of that and I look forward to hearing how it went…
Woot! Party like it’s 1999!
OH, and the stupid stupid remarks that the H-T Editorial Board put out in their opinion column about Y2K? Those H-T Burgermeisters attempted a snide analogy between Y2K hysteria and peak oil crisis? Um, there were megabucks poured into diverting computer meltdowns. Very different approach to an impending crisis from the “bury one’s head in the sand” mentality that is preceding peak oil issues facing inhabitants on earth today, this minute— which is a reckless frame about the earth’s resources that the H-T Board seems to want to promulgate with their opinion column— and the recent publication of a poorly researched article that was written about the task force’s report.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Thank you for the reminder of our recent history. We do live in a country & county in which most folks suffer from historical memory loss. I liken the three evenings of listening to (mostly) the rants of the developers, farmers-who-wanna-be developers, realtors, and Republicans, etc. to watching 15 hours of Fixed Noise (ie Fox News). A person stands at the podium and gets teary-eyed as they argue against the plan “the won’t let me subdivide my property into parcels smaller than 10 acres”. Then, a member of the Plan Commission will correct the record. “No, there is no such provision in this policy statement”. Then, the next person gets up to the podium and repeats the same lie. How many of these folks have read the plan? Probably less than a handful.
On the other hand, I am extremely impressed with the fact that people are paying attention to local government! And I will add that while we have heard some interesting and salient commentary, one of the problems is that the Plan Commission has not (publicly) had the opportunity to discuss their own suggestions for revisions yet. That should probably have come first.
And, since you have allowed me the opportunity to vent, please indulge me one more l criticism of a number of the anti-plan speakers. Too many folks begin their statement at the podium with an “aw shucks, I’m just a regular guy” routine (is this how they explain why they have not read the plan?). This was typically followed by a statement of how much land they own, how many years (generations) they have lived in the County, et al. I resent these quantifying statements. The Plan is for every Monroe County resident - renters, small land owners, large property owners. We all drink water from the Lake. We all pay for the roads, schools, utilities, emergency services, etc. And we all count. This Plan is not only for the residents who have lived here the longest, it is also for those who have lived here a few years, and those who will live here in the future.
Thanks for your interest in the plan and many thanks to everyone who has come out to speak their mind on the plan!
For your blog readers who haven’t seen the plan yet, they can find it at: http://www.co.monroe.in.us/planning/compplan.html. On this page you will also find a link to the comment form (or if you are more comfortable, there is an e-mail address to send comments to).
November 19th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Ladies, I gotta say the “farmers who wanna be developers” is pretty right on! (and funny!) The county planning director and I had a long talk today, a venting session really about how to handle stressful personnel issues, but we also talked about the comprehensive plan. He mentioned his appreciation of you Julie, and all the work you’ve taken on since taking office. Sophia surely knows just how very “not part time” being a council member is! Experience tells me the crazy masses will calm down and “cope” with the comprehensive plan once it is passed. I say if they want to run rip-shot over the land, they need to move to one of our neighboring counties that has no planning dept. Funny how they wouldn’t find the adjacent counties nearly as profitable huh? Hehe!
Anywho you both have my admiration! And Sophia, if you chose to run again, you’ve got my vote!
November 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Greetings! It is really an honor to hear from not just one, but two, elected officials! Especially two women holding elected office…lots of food for thought in the insight and view you can give to readers about the issue at hand– and beyond.
Which leads me to thinking about what it is that women bring to elected office that is different from men holding elected office.
Speaking in generalities, I think that women represent the voices of their constituents in a way that feels, and comes across, as more organic to their way of composing themselves, presenting information, and their longer view towards the future consequences of an initiative (or, in the Council’s case, the resulting scenarios of funding/not funding priorities).
Is this because we fight for our voices to be heard as individuals all our lives– and we are used to blurring the boundaries (in a good way) between what we need while inherently applying that knowledge towards what our fellow sisters need? And this in turn is a natural segue to think in these terms about the human condition regardless of gender?
Perhaps I’m spinning out– but all I know is that I do believe women in public service bring a much needed balance– but also exponentially more– in that I think we’re more natural than our male counterparts at being wary of the negativity that egocentric thinking brings to public processes, community-centered government services, and work styles and ethics…it’s just really refreshing to see and observe the openness, unpretentiousness, of women public servants.
I don’t know if I will return to local government in the capacity of an elected office– but I’m definitely always planning to “stay tuned!”
Thank you so much for helping to keep fingers on the pulse of County Government!
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I find it really sad that so many people show up to speak but dont get a chance and you immediately find a way to dismiss the opinion of those people. not everyone affected by this is a developer or farmer wanna be or a republican. I am none of these and by the way those people are tax paying members of this community as well. I could say all of you are city dwellers, wacko democrats working for the city/county government, or the out of touch IU professors bound on pushing your utopian ideas on the masses. That would not get to the point of the subject that the frailty of the environment and property value are very important things. We all want clean water and tasteful development. The concern for water and environment can be handled on a less complex plan clearly set to exclude any development. Check your transcript about your comments on that
Many people own land that will be affected and they know nothing about this plan. These same people are democrats like myself that do not agree with your plan.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 pm
i dont want to subdivide i want to build my home on 20 acres within the 1/2 mile of lake monroe.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:34 am
As I mentioned, there were a number of interesting and salient comments over the three days of public hearings - the following are the changes I would like to see the Plan Commission consider (because I listened and took copious notes throughout the hearings!):
1. Someone made a great point about enforcement. It is one of the areas the Planning Dept / Plan Commission has been criticized for in the past. If there are strict standards re: land use in the new ordinances (especially in environmentally sensitive areas such as watershed areas), we need to ensure that we have the requisite staff to enforce any new ordinances.
2. We need to consider both impact fees and user fees for subdivisions - what is their true purpose and how are they used in other jurisdictions?
3. The property tax cap needs to be explained more carefully / thoroughly to County residents. The cap refers to the toal property tax we collect (as a whole) throughout the County. If we quadrupled the number of homes in our County, we would be tied to the same (total) property tax cap. This is why there is such a concern about the impact of subdivisions on the taxpayers throughout the County. Maybe an explanation of the property tax cap should be included in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I think this plan would look different if the property tax cap were NOT in place.
4. The Plan Commission should discuss (and we will - the first Thursday in December!) the proper role of zoming ordinances in regulating land use for business development. Are there ways we can encourage economic development without forcing it to take place in a certain part of the County? Or, do we simply consider the land use and business development takes place anywhere that is appropriate? Both have positive and negative consequences. I am so glad that the Commission has put this question on the agenda for our first meeting in December.
5. The above question needs to be asked re: educational facilities. Where should the next campus go? What is the predicted need for new campus space in the County?
6. Are Presby septic systems better for the environment than sewers? Good question. I will research it!
7. Yes, more time. The Plan Commission has yet to comment on their own suggested revisions and/or the ideas gleaned from public input. Please, give us the time to do this & then we need to encourage folks to read the revised plan and see if we have addressed their concerns. As someone pointed out, we won’t make everyone happy.
8. The glossary must be published with the revised plan.
9. Can we convince the H-T to print the revised plan? Now THAT would be a public service!
10. We need to address the concerns expressed by a few folks that some people may decide to “rush to subdivide”, which may damage the environment and stretch the infrastructure in ways that will be a detriment to the County & its residents.
In addition to the ideas listed above (yes, public opinion is not dismissed - EVER), I have multiple suggestions for document revisions (in addition to the 2 pages of formatting, grammatical, and spelling errors which I already submitted to the Planning office).
If anyone wishes to send me a comment, please do so (councilorthomas@gmail.com). Of course, you will have to use your name if you would like me to respond to your message.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Joking about a grown man crying. your plan does have something much worse than that. How about no development within a 1/2 mile of lake monroe. how many families are crying about that do you want to explain that or joke about these families as well. Did you know the location of this mans land because your plan may have affected his land. I will save my questions for when this is covered by a real newspaper or media outlet not the biased HT.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:48 am
If you go back to the micro film section of the Monroe County Library and look at 1959 (If I remember correctly) the State promised that the shore line around Lake Monroe would not be a place for luxury home construction. People were upset that their land was being taken away and were suspicous that powerful people would end up with it to make a huge profit. The State wanted to dispel that idea.
In the end the vested interests got what they wanted.
Without Lake Monroe our community would be a backward drinkwater area. No state is as cavilier as we are when it comes to the protection of our water resources. It’s a Hoosier value!
November 24th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Councilor Thomas, Thanks so much for the outline of thoughtful points– I would only add that I did urge the Plan Commission to bring in a writer– not a technocrat, to put the Comp Plan in an every day readers’ style and language. That is my main criticism– this was not understood or appreciated as a priority by a consensus. And I really mean it when I say it should be written by a WRITER, not a technocrat. A real writer with editing talent could do wonders for the document.
“County Rep”, I can’t really understand your points but as a COUNTY dweller, homeowner, property owner (23.5 acres) I am grateful that my land is protected. I have no interest in subdividing. As a relatively large landowner in a rural area of the county, I’d just like to extend my thanks to the members of the plan commission who have worked hard on the badly-needed update to our County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
I did not buy my property as an investment, I did not buy it as a retirement plan, I did not buy it as a get-rich-quick scheme.
I bought it as a home and I appreciate that the work the Plan Commission does will help to preserve my property’s value, my property rights, and the values of rural Monroe County.
JD, I like the tongue in cheek…I guess you probably noticed artist Brian Garvey’s “Ustabe Lake Homes” sign in his rendition of the rampant development in the picture above…
November 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
you need to resign and let someone who has a clue, take your slot…
November 24th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
A..M..Y.., stop being such a disrespectful dipshit. The developers in this county have successfully fucked up a wide swath of Bloomington’s west side, as evidenced by its miserable property values in comparison with the rest of the city. Only a grade-A moron would suggest that these pieces of shit should have free reign to do the same to the rest of this county.
Because our elected officials are too classy to do it, I’ll say what most of Bloomington is thinking: these nouveau riche white trash developer fuckwads can cram their entitlement issues straight up their asses and go piss off in Greenwood or Bedford. Those areas will be appropriately impressed with their douchebag luxury cars and golf handicaps, and we’ll be mercifully free from their tasteless, greedy asses once and for all.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Swampy, you have such a way with words!
BIG cyber hug and kiss from me to you!!
November 24th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Sophia
Would your property allow you to build on its current site after this plan passes. Looks like a slope over 15% next to the house and next to a stream that vulnerable land isn’t it. Now that you have yours change the plan so no-one can have what you have. Selfish isn’t it
November 25th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Here is an email response that I sent to “County Rep:”
—–
I’m sorry that I did not respond to this earlier, for some reason it ended up in my junk folder. I just noticed it now when looking for something else.
I’m glad that you looked up my property and have performed an assessment of the buildable areas on the property. First, I don’t agree with your characterization of what is, and what is not, buildable on the land and I’m happy to throw my parcel information at the planning department and have them determine where, if any, are the buildable areas. If you read the comprehensive plan, the only place they mention slopes are pages 18, where they recommend that nothing be built ON THE SLOPE ITSELF, page 19 where they have a map of parcels containing such slopes (note that the presence of a steep slope on a parcel does not make the parcel unbuildable, only that portion with the slope), page 63 where they advocate prohibiting development ON THE SLOPES THEMSELVES (but not on any parcel containing a slope), and page 102 where they talk about steep slopes and the prohibition of development on them IF AN ADEQUATE SOIL EROSION PLAN isn’t submitted — i.e. steep slopes can be developed on provided a plan to control the negative environmental effects exists.
Finally, if you look at the 1:24,000 topographic map of my property, you will see that the elevation varies from 700′ to ca. 590′ — a twenty foot drop in total from the highest to the lowest point, separated by distances of between 500′ and 1000′. That’s FAR below a 15% grade and there are literally acres of relatively flat ground within our property on which to build.
Second, it doesn’t really matter to me because I didn’t buy my property to build additional structures on it, nor to subdivide it and parcel it out. I bought it to live on, in the existing structures and, if I ever sell it, it will be “as-is” with whatever restrictions there are.
Third, give me the latitude and longitude of your property. I’m sure we can find PLENTY of buildable locations on it, irrespective of how steep the maximum slopes.
Third, as for “giving up my land” I have never suggested, nor could I conceive, of supporting anything that did not grandfather existing uses — like my 160 year old house
November 26th, 2009 at 9:12 am
It looks like you have a lovely home and I am happy for you. Really I am not a mean person and I feel we need to protect the environment also. But how many people will be affected by this plan that are not as fortunate as you to have 20 acres to find a building spot or a personal relationship with the planners? The half mile around the lake is crazy, I am not a rich developer or considered wealthy by anyone’s standards. the shore line of lake monroe is like any other desirable property, at some time it was owned by a poor family or farmer that choose to sell it for what they considered a fair price. Having a limited shoreline people find it desirable to have that land and will pay more for that, but to say everyone is rich and powerful is simply not true. I certainly do not want to have the property we own filled with homes, the beauty of it would be lost. I would like to retain the right to build my home on 20 acres within a half mile of lake monroe. This plan is scary and the attitude of the people involved makes me feel unsure if anyone is taking my concerns seriously.
People will do anything to protect what they have worked hard for and if this plan seems to threaten that we will become enraged when our concerns are dismissed.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Sorry i will not give you my lat and long. But the plan says no development within a 1/2 mile of the lake and all of my property is within 1/2 mile of the lake. I have voted for you in the past and have worked with the democrats in the past few elections, but feel this plan is taking it a bit far. maybe because this time it affects me and now i am starting to question my views on everything. if i did not have property on the lake would i agree with this plan? It is hard to put yourself in others shoes, maybe we should look at the Declaration of Independence and try to understand what they were talking about. I have it on my wall makes it easy for me
November 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
County Rep, Your concerns can be addressed through the professional Planning Department staff, your questions answered by ready and capable public servants working there— and I am confident that your concerns will always be respectfully heard by every single Plan Commissioner and each elected official who is directly working on land use issues. For that matter, even elected officials who have a seemingly distant role with land use issues (justice department for instance) really have a vested interest in land use issues because their dependence on funding from property taxes and other taxes that hinge on wise patterns of growth…
you would be taken much more seriously if you did not remain anonymous. That anonymity you hide behind renders you impotent and your voice sounds hollow. Come out from behind your screen and many of your fears will probably subside as the sunlight would do wonders for shedding light on some of the thoughts you have spinning out into much more anxiety than I think you need to feel. You don’t have to reveal yourself in this venue but I certainly hope you air your greivances in person at any of the public opportunities provided to you through our local democratic processes.
And big rockin’ shout out to Swampy— lovely to hear from you, you’re my favorite firecracker: Happy *bleep bleep* holiday season to you my man!
November 27th, 2009 at 4:11 am
Would it be inappropriate to ask Swampy to give the toast at my wedding? It might guarantee sweet gifts! “I said I did not want a toaster. Since you gave me a toaster anyway you must now be roasted by Swampy during the first dance.”
Swampy for County Council! Yeah, I said it. I would like to nominate Swampy.