Comments on: Avondale Church Zoning Dispute Opens Old Annexation Wounds

By: Ridgelandistan

Ridgelandistan — Mon, 17 May 2010 19:44:04 +0000

Dictating that a property owner subsidize a large portion of their property to an impermeable asphalt cover just to provide some patrons a “free” parking spot for their automobiles has proven quite detrimental in the long run. The codes were developed in an era when there were actual plans for nuclear powered automobiles and other tech fantasies. We are at the tail end of the supply of cheap energy that sustained and encouraged a culture that made such a governmental dictat over personal freedom seem “normal”. It’s worth revisiting some of these codes to prepare for a more sustainable future.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 17 May 2010 17:38:27 +0000

Whatever the outcome of this, property owners outside the City of Avondale, but within their range of desirability do not want to be in the city limits. Their zoning codes were most definitely written for a different time. As far as I am concerned, they can keep the codes they have and the enforcement they have and they will also keep the commercial district they have. Nice trade off, huh? But they do not deserve to expand their enlightened thinking to the adjoining districts. Just stay in your cocoon and leave every one else alone. If you ever emerge from that cocoon, you will see a new world and maybe benefit from it.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Sun, 16 May 2010 16:16:23 +0000

Not to “stand up for the man,” but I don’t think parking regulations like this are “a useless vestige of the destructive happy motoring fantasy.”

What they are is an attempt to respect the effect that any public meeting house has on the traffic flows and parking constraints of a residential area. As much as we’d like to pretend that reduced parking will inspire more patrons to walk, what really happens is that those people still drive; they just end up clogging the residential parking to do so.

Not to mention, these regulations also exist to ensure that elderly or disabled patrons are able to access their place of worship.

So, before we jump to conclusions about allegedly bullyish behavior by Avondale government, at least acknowledge that they’re perfectly justified in this action, and the spirit and letter of the law are legit.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:46:17 +0000

You know about Avondale now. Do not listen to what they say. Watch what they do. With the help of Stephanie Stuckey, they have sought to terrorize adjoining property owners by OFFERING their annexation plans. I see that the posters now know what property owners surrounding Avondale have known all along. There is no reason a commercial property owner would want to be in Avondale. They have nothing to offer but their vision of what others should do with their properties.

Avondale leaders, wake up. Look at what you have done to your city. Want something better? Do something different than you have the last 50 years. Is the definition of insanity ” doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome”? You have what you want and have wanted too long. Sitting around a council meeting telling anyone there that you are business friendly and want change just does not square with your actions. My advice, stay where you are and be happy with what you have built. Or take actions that are different from the past!

By: HDog

HDog — Thu, 13 May 2010 03:51:05 +0000

oop! that should read burg, not bug …..
what would freud have to say about that?