315 West Ponce Neighbors File Court Appeal Regarding City’s Actions Surrounding Planned Development
Decatur Metro | July 9, 2013
UPDATE: DM has obtained a copy of the lawsuit. Click HERE to read it in full.
A group of neighboring residents called the “Coalition for Responsible Decatur Growth” sent a note around yesterday evening informing neighbors that an appeal of the City’s decisions surrounding the 315 West Ponce mixed-use development had been “filed with the DeKalb of the City’s decisions in DeKalb Superior Court under an action called a Mandamus.” According to the Superior Court’s website, the appeal was filed on June 14th. The list of defendants includes the City of Decatur, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the developer Carter USA. The letter goes on to say…
We are asking the Court to make the City go back and do it right in several of the areas noted in our May Appeal to the Zoning Board. We also want to legally look at what happened to the 2008 Ordinance that approved a smaller development with more protections for us and the neighborhood.
The note also states that the group is looking to raise $10,000 to pay for legal fees associated with the appeal.
We’ve reached out to the city for comment and will let you know if we receive reply.
Latest from Decaturish
So, if I translate, they want the court to get involved to mandate a “do over”? On what grounds?
Maybe I’m trying too hard to understand the logic here… Another interpretation of this would be, “Na-nana boo-boo, stick your responsible Decatur Growth out of our view-hoo!”
Generally, a mandamus is a court order instructing a public official to do his/her duty as the law requires. It is pretty extraordinary relief and is generally pretty hard to get, because Courts don’t usually want to get mixed up in telling elected officials what to do. (There are, of course, exceptions.) All of which means this lawsuit probably faces long odds.
Thanks, that was what I thought as well DEM.
Which then begs the question… on what grounds do they expect the DeKalb Superior court to go to these extraordinary lengths to get involved?
I do recall that some concerns about traffic management were raised – that may be a fair point that is best addressed before plans are finalized.
That being said, the city’s stated 10 year plan (developed with significant community engagement) is to foster higher density, mixed use development to increase the tax base with minimal increased load on infrastructure. As far as I can tell, this development fits with the strategy. It also complies with the new codes that were re-written in the past few years (with this property in mind, based on concerns from this neighborhood).
Maybe someone can enlighten me on what they mean by “legally look at what happened to the 2008 ordinance.” ?
Maybe someone could enlighten them.
DM, either there are some typos or the letter you quoted is poorly written. Plus, I think the list is of the Defendants, not the Plaintiffs.
I never quite understand the derision that people who choose to go to court to petition for redress seem to attract. These are successful, intelligent people who feel procedures were not followed and the developer and the city are looking for profit/taxes/more residents.
Would you rather live where the courts were not available?
By all means – the courts are available to enforce the rule of law. And if they file, the court will need to assess the grounds of their complaint, the city will have to respond to the charges and we will all have to pay the bill.
If they have firm grounds upon which to file this petition, I wish them well.
However, I tend to deride these kinds of efforts as they tend to be frivolous, expensive and counter-productive. Moreover, I get frustrated when people feel entitled to dictate how others can exercise their personal property rights.
When I moved downtown, I knew there was a chance that more residential development, including rental, was possible and even likely to happen. I don’ t understand why a few people think they should be able to block development that is not only within the zoning laws, but is a huge upgrade on the current usage.
I think you’ve hit on it, brianc. It’s about expectations.
An oft-repeated (in certain circles) quote about city living is, “if you’ve bought into the idea of isolation and exclusivity, every new resident detracts from your sense of amenity. But if you’re seeking a more robust community, every new resident adds to your value.”
There’s clearly some differences of opinion as to what’s appropriate for that site and working through them is proving predictably messy. Personally, I tend to defer to whatever opinion’s rooted in the Strategic Plan, as those are the positions that have been vetted and legitimized by the broader community. Everyone’s still entitled to their own, of course, but whether or not one’s opinion extends beyond their own property line is something the court can settle.
This is absolutely ridiculous. The group needs $10k to fight this nonsensical battle. I’m inferring that means that the city of Decatur is going to be spending about that much to “defend” itself. As Pierce said – this development fits the city’s stated goals and regulations. A couple, and only a couple, of people are holding this up and costing the rest of the taxpayers money. Ridiculous. Does this pending lawsuit keep Carter from getting underway with this? If so, I hope they turn around and sue these [edited: no name-calling] for their own loss of time and money.
$10k is probably an understatement for both sides.
“A couple, and only a couple, of people are holding this up and costing the rest of the taxpayers money.”
Not a fan of individual rights?
We have no way of knowing this, but the intent of the plaintiffs is important here. If they honestly believe their rights are being violated, they are going about this the right way. But, if this suit is based on some misguded spite and done simply to add delay, expense and a giant headache to everyone involved, then I agree this is ridiculous. But, then again, apparently people contribute to GGD, so I am sure this group will be able to raise some cash for the exact same tactics.
I don’t disparage their right to sue. I don’t disparage their right to voice their opinion, however wrongheaded. None of that makes their case less ridiculous. The fact that there is no well-spring of resistance against this project (or even hardly a trickle at this point) should give them the clue that they are flailing out there in the wind and their opinion, while they are entitled to it, is in the vast minority. Do they just think they are smarter than the rest of us? No, I think you nailed it DF: “this suit is based on some misguded spite and done simply to add delay, expense and a giant headache to everyone involved.”
This legal action is such a colossal waste of time, energy, money and county and city resources! This is a good project in the right location!
I agree with your first statement. But, “This is a good project in the right location!” has absolutely no bearing on whether the individuals can choose to exercise their rights and file an appeal. Whether or not they should is a different story…
Good for them. Carter and the city have been completely dismissive of concerns from the local neighborhood concerning traffic, parking and other issues. I am from that neighborhood, though I am not a part of this action. I support them 100%, as does, I am confident to say, every person to whom I have spoken from the neighborhood regarding this project.
I can also say that the “asks” by the neighborhood constituencies have been very minor. The project is not code compliant and the revised zoning ordinance was not passed in accordance with the proper procedural protocol.
I hope they succeed, and I will be contributing my money toward ensuring that the city adopts projects that consider its own codes and the concerns of the surrounding community.
The project must be code compliant, or it wouldn’t have been approved by the staff of the city, whose job it is to decide such things. I don’t want Mark Gannon or a judge deciding what is code compliant in Decatur. I want the professionals at City Hall deciding that. If they don’t do their job, they will be removed by our elected leaders. This totally undermines our local governance system. Which seemed to working pretty well until the Gannons moved here and decided they’ve been part of the running of such a high-functioning government that they felt the need to spread that type of success over to the city. Because the city hasn’t been doing too well. Thank you very little.
You really think that because the city and staff approved, it is code compliant?
Unlike the petitioners, I support this development.
But the city council (and prior, their staff) ruled that the development was compliant with Decatur’s traffic ordinances, which nobody can claim with a straight face.
Decatur Ordinance 10.18.2 (I think Moderate posted this last Spring):
4.Ingress and egress–The proposed points of vehicular ingress and egress must complement or improve existing traffic patterns and provide a safe and convenient access for bicyclist and pedestrians.
Furthermore, a parking study for Decatur from 2009 (link somewhere on DM) had this recommendation (not law or regulation, but it representing contemporary planning practices):
Development Regulations
– Develop guidelines for site plan review, including specific conditions that may be
imposed on large developments that require traffic impact analyses (TIAs). The
CTP recommends that these conditions include shared parking, market-based
public pricing, transportation stipends for employees and unbundled parking costs.
And that is my beef. Nobody at the city or at the developers seems to take seriously the need to conduct a traffic impact study/analysis. It is just common sense. That very intersection at Ponce Place is already where the Ponce does weird lane striping changes in the rapid transition to the 2 left turn lanes at Commerce. Just take the traffic concerns seriously.
It’s correct that no traffic impact study was conducted, but this shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as synonymous with there being no idea what the impacts will be. Impact studies are speculative whereas downtown actually has something of far greater value: Built evidence that can be measured and assessed.
For example, between 1996 and 2009, downtown gained 75,000 square feet of retail space and around 600 housing units, yet traffic on Ponce remained statistically identical. So when someone suggests that the traffic impacts from this project will not be as apocalyptic as some have speculated, it’s not an exercise in blind faith but, rather, a position rooted in on-the-ground, measurable data.
The real issue is circulation and I support efforts on this front to ensure the project integrates well with its surroundings. But talk of carmageddon is overblown. We’ve experienced growth far more significant than this one project and it just didn’t happen.
Well said, Scott. Ask yourself DrB: How much negative traffic impact did the Artisan building have when it was built? And the Gannon’s building? I witnessed these building before and after, and my gut tells me that they did not cause major traffic issues at any intersections near them. Drive there right now – any issues? Drive there at 5pm – any issues? But don’t believe my gut, believe the facts on the ground as presented by Scott.
Excellent points.
It should be noted that the sole named Plaintiff in this case is Mark Gannon, the husband of Dekalb City Commissioner Kathie Gannon.
I’m pretty upset that my Dekalb County Commissioner is wasting my city tax dollars by bringing this frivolous lawsuit against not only the City, but our volunteer citizen led zoning board.
Shame on Kathie Gannon!
Gannon has lost my vote evermore.
I’m not sure I’d want to be judged by the actions of my husband. If she encouraged him to file, that’s one thing. But the mere fact that her husband filed a lawsuit isn’t necessarily her fault is it?
All you legal types – there’s now a link to the full petition for mandamus at the top of the original post.
The suit alleges that the denial of Gannon’s appeal was arbitrary and capricious. I assume that’s the legal standard his suit needs to meet. If so, good luck. That is inherently and notoriously difficult to prove.
Just because you want to see a project built, doesn’t mean that people who oppose the project deserve to be called names or that their legal actions are frivolous.
There are not 1 or 2 who oppose this project. I would venture to say it is over 100 (judging by my own headcount). The opposition, every step of the way in public forums, has been standing room only. No one I have ever spoken to in the neighborhood is opposed to the development of the parcel. They just don’t want to deal with all the negative byproducts of a development that has been poorly planned when the developer plans to flip it as soon as it is built.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t one of the “asks” of those in opposition is that considerably fewer residences be built on the parcel? If so, that’s a pretty significant demand, one that people could hardly expect the developer to accede to unless the zoning law requires it.
As I recall, the number of units is more than allowed…and the garage is not designed to meet the rules. I don’t live in the immediate neighborhood and generally support greater density and more rentals but, as a Decatur homeowner, I do expect the City staff & officials to protect everyone’s interests fairly…and making concessions to the ordinances/code should be justified. Otherwise we burden ourselves for years to come just to increase the profits of a few folks who have little vested interest in the long term consequences of the flaws (not meeting zoning). The only people that make me more nervous than govt…are short-term oriented business folks. This needs to be dealt with properly and I it had, the appeal would not have been necessary.
The number of units is less than what is allowed under the code.
The developer met numerous times with the neighborhood and made some concessions with regard to the number of units and parking.
At some point you just have to file your permits and build. You will not be able to appease everyone, particularly people that want to see no development at all occur here.
Does this send a message to other developers that building in Decatur will be an expensive, lengthy and often silly process?
Filing a lawsuit is a terrible means to resolve a conflict. Litigation is time consuming and expensive.
But it’s good in one respect: leverage. If you are negotiating with someone and you’re not getting anywhere, filing a lawsuit is one way to gain a whole bunch of leverage quickly. You’re saying, pay attention to me. In one fell swoop, I’ve just made this dispute a whole lot more expensive for you to resolve. Give me some of what I want, and I’ll go away.
Rightly or wrongly, I suspect that’s what the Gannons are going for. They don’t want a full blown trial and years of litigation. They just want some more leverage at the bargaining table.
I’m not saying I agree with them. But Mark is a smart lawyer who probably just sees the legal system as a tool to get what he wants.
The comment from G buck regarding the development communities perception of Decatur is spot on. I work with a good number of developers in the city and they know that I live in the area. They have referenced many times how the Decatur market is something that they have interest in but the people and process is crazy there. Right now it is easier to do a deal in the City of Atlanta where it can often take 4 to 6 months to obtain a permit. The approval process has lest public input. (many would think that more public input is good) but at times you have people with little or no education on how a project of this scale actually goes together, or how the economics work. That limited experience tends to make ones opinion more personal to a select few. Much like the project in question here. Overall this takes time and costs money both of these are a key decision component to site selection for a development. This is likely good news to many who are not in favor of new development in Decatur but please remember that it is the development and changes that have made our city so great and the downtown so vibrant. This project although not supported by many in the adjoining neighborhood does benefit the overall city. I know several development teams watching this deal very closely to see what happens. I know that they have ideas about sites still developable in Decatur but will likely walk away if the outcome goes one way or the other. (Again all in my opinion)
So, you had an honest straightforward experience with the city that went your way. What if your experience was clouded and you felt unjust? Would you have just shut up and went your way as you feel the folks living around this proposed development should do?
Please stop making this so personal. It isn’t. Every resident of Decatur deserves to be heard.
i replied to the wrong person. this was meant to reply to Tom, below. sorry.
I’m not sure where you are getting this idea that Decatur is so hard to do a development. Besides this project, there are 4 other condos/apartments approved to be built at: 527 N. McDonough, 432 E. Howard Ave, The Ice House Project, and apartments and retail at 233 E. Trinity Pl. So, why is this project being watched more closely by the developers than any one of the other 4?
What is the Ice House Project? Haven’t heard about any new development over there.
I generally stay away from blogs as 2-3 unemployed cranks usually dominate the thread, but feel compelled to comment. I often read in this blog of support for high or medium density planning based on the 10-yr plan. However, the medium and higher density described in the 10-yr plan is based on an arguably unrealistic percentage of mass transit usage. I would guess that the city realizes this, because when projects such as this are actually approved, they don’t reflect the spirit of the 10-yr plan; they account for a more realistic rate of mass transit usage (read zero). The city is talking out of both sides of their mouth, and the real traffic concerns are never truly studied. Traffic is by far the main concern. Even though most of the organizers live in the 315 condo place, most of the houses surrounding this development are single-family, single-story homes that rely on street parking. Common sense alone would suggest that adding, conservatively, 700 cars to the area will cause some issues. Add a popular retail attraction, and daily traffic could be 3X as high as that.
As a long-time resident of Decatur, I would also like to dispel some myths that have cropped up on this blog in the past. One, most of the residents surrounding the proposed site of the new development are not hipsters, but grayhairs who have been here long enough to see the city go really bad, then worse, then transitional, and now (some might argue worst of all) yuppie. Who remembers when the taqueria was a gas station? Two, there are no NIMBYs here. I know of no one in the area that doesn’t want to see the area developed. Before the recession hit, brownstones were slated to be built there. That would have been the perfect transition from the downtown to a very residential area.
Most of the folks, and I live nearby, simply want the city to have an honest discussion with them about this. This project was rammed through at the 11th hour by our ex-mayor. (Say, anyone know what he’s doing now?) The very speed at which it was approved raises some ethical questions. No one has really thought through the effects on traffic, or the faulty logic upon which the 10-yr plan could be used to justify a 7-story parking garage. And shouldn’t the citizenry have a say about whether we want to be a little midtown, stuffed full of expensive condos? (My vote=no) Worst of all, when the locals voiced their frustration at not even being given notice (I attended one of these meetings), the city first told us that they did, but that was not true. Next, they said they had contacted some of the residents in the area, but couldn’t provide any names. And then, they simply said that the information ‘was available’, because it was at city hall. (should any of us Decatur-ites happen to be stopping by the place on a daily basis just to see what’s new, I guess.)
I hope you see this as an honest attempt to help you understand where I and the other residents are coming from. Development = good, but this deal stinks.
Traffic impact, management and planning is a valid concern, that is best managed before plans are finalized. I don’t think anybody KNOWS how much the residents will drive vs. walk vs. use mass transit, but a traffic assessment could certainly get an idea by surveying the residents of Decatur’s other high density developments. If that is the heart of the criticism, lets discuss as a community and I expect we can exert pressure on the city to respond.
The citizenry has a say in what is developed by influencing the building code – we do not have the right to edit and change development plans. If a property is within code, the property owner has the right to develop what they choose. If you didn’t believe a 7 story property was in the best interests of the city, that argument should have been written into the code. Certainly, a developer should look to make some reasonable concessions to the demands of neighbors, but it is not reasonable to expect that a developer would cut the size of the development in half to appease local cranks (your language).
And finally, I’m a bit perplexed by your conflicting criticisms that this property will not have enough parking and that it has a parking structure that is too large? Isn’t the heart of the criticism that residents of your building are ticked off that they are going to lose the view that they thought you bought? I think we can empathize that this kind of sucks, but that is life in the city.
It seems to me, and please correct if me I’m wrong, that Pierce is right that those opposing this particular development want a much smaller one (preferably not rentals) instead, and, in the case of a few people, one that would not change their view. That is unreasonable, period.
lets discuss as a community and I expect we can exert pressure on the city to respond.
Yep. That is what we want.
If you didn’t believe a 7 story property was in the best interests of the city, that argument should have been written into the code.
Pierce, it WAS written into the code, vis-à-vis the 10 year strategic plan, but it’s not being followed. If it was being followed, there would be no 7-story parking garage, because the new residents would be mostly using mass transit and the retail spaces would cater to mostly pedestrians. I don’t see that happening.
Certainly, a developer should look to make some reasonable concessions to the demands of neighbors, but it is not reasonable to expect that a developer would cut the size of the development in half to appease local cranks (your language).
This is not about the developer, actually. It is about the residents v. the city, and due process. Let’s, as you say, have the conversation as a community. And, given the number of times that I have been on this blog, I would like to apologize for my earlier comment about ‘unemployed cranks.’
I’m a bit perplexed by your conflicting criticisms that this property will not have enough parking and that it has a parking structure that is too large?
Please allow me to clarify. On one hand, I tried to make the point that the 10-yr strategic plan assumes a level of mass transit usage that would not require a parking garage of this size. So, why is it so big? But beyond that, this project was approved at this size (density), because of this assumption of mass transit usage. So, are we (the citizenry of Decatur) sticking to the letter of the 10-yr plan or not? That said, as the size of the project currently stands, it still has insufficient parking to accommodate both future residents and retail space. So, the 10-yr plan was used to support the approval of such a dense development, yet the planned parking garage is not even big enough to accommodate the expected parking requirements. For example, they are making the assumption that each new household in this development will only have one car. How many households do you know have only one car? They are also assuming that something like ~50-60% of these cars will be gone during the day, freeing up parking spaces for the retail operations. That doesn’t reflect a level of mass transit usage that is anywhere close to what is in the 10-yr plan. They know this already, and that’s not accounting for what would happen if a popular retail destination was put there. Do you see the disconnect between the assumption of mass transit usage in the 10-yr plan and real life?
And yeah, that probably means a lot more traffic for formerly quiet residential streets, but since Decatur drivers are always going the speed limit and looking out for kids, pets and slow-moving older people, I’m sure that won’t be a problem. (disclaimer: I am not on one of those scheduled to be formerly quiet residential streets, but I have many longtime friends and neighbors who are.)
Isn’t the heart of the criticism that residents of your building are ticked off that they are going to lose the view that they thought you bought?
I am a resident of the neighborhood who will be affected by the parking and traffic. I don’t live in “that building”, and I don’t know anyone who does. I actually don’t know their reasoning for pursuing this. Perhaps they are just more organized than the rest of us residents; after all, I’m sure they run into each other living in the same building.
I think we can empathize that this kind of sucks, but that is life in the city.
You are probably doing better at this than me. If losing a view was the sole motivating factor, then I would have no empathy. Yet I suspect that there is more to this story, because they are currently looking at an asphalt parking lot. Would a parking garage be that much worse?
Not to be snarky, but if you are going to post something that long then some spacing and distinction between quotes and your responses would be helpful.
Sorry, I have never done this before.
“Pierce, it WAS written into the code, vis-à-vis the 10 year strategic plan, but it’s not being followed.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t those two separate things, with only the former being binding?
I think that you are correct in that the code is ‘binding’, but the meeting that i attended left no doubt in my mind that the 10 year strategic plan is the basis for approval of such a high density housing unit. And if it isn’t, then what is the use of a ‘strategic plan’? I mean, if it’s not followed, then why have it? (These are open questions; i don’t know)
-1, public street
Am I right to understand that the developer is building a parking garage outside some of the units….meaning some units will now have a view of a parking garage?
As a fellow human being, would you want to overlook a parking garage?
How about some compassion?
The rear units in the Gannon’s building currently look down on their own building’s parking garage and the neighboring building’s parking lot. So, yes, the neighboring view will change from flat asphalt to a multi-level deck but I don’t know if, in a downtown context, that’s an incremental change that should surprise anyone.
Theres a big difference between looking at the horizon and looking at a parking deck. From an individual human being to individual human being, of course one would have compassion for them unless you are a stone. Jeez what’s happened to people?
I guess I’m a stone then. Because if I bought one of those condos downtown, I think I would have had the foresight to think, “hey, maybe they’ll build some more condos next door!” What happened to people, you ask? What happened to common sense, I say!
Just read the lawsuit, and I am offended and take it personally, and almost feel like Mark Gannon is suing me, instead of the city, which actually as a Decatur resident, I am paying for the defense. Over 11 years, I have taken out 5 or 6 permits from Decatur Development and have experienced complete professionalism, abundant communication, and very transparent and clear procedures.
As far as the process by which the city wrote these new rules, they were even more open and transparent. A few years ago, after a dinner at Taco Mac, my family went into the next retail space the city had rented to advertise all of the development options that were on the table. I was able to write my comments, talk personally to Amanda Thompson, and sign up my name on the sign up list. This was above and beyond what was needed to implement development rules.
I believe he is only now involved with this bogus lawsuit because he wants his condo on the 6th floor to maintain its view. Essentially he wants to OWN the neighboring 5 acres, without buying it. By noting the other 40 condo owners in the appeal, the suit seems to try to say everyone else is with him. But why weren’t the other condo owners named as plaintiffs? Now he is forming a community group, to fund his lawsuit? That is like saying, ” hey everybody, give me money to buy my view, and oh yeah, you on the 3rd floor, you might still have to look up to see the sky, but give me money anyway, so my 6th floor view will be preserved”
So, you had an honest straightforward experience with the city that went your way. What if your experience was clouded and you felt unjust? Would you have just shut up and went your way as you feel the folks living around this proposed development should do?
Please stop making this so personal. It isn’t. Every resident of Decatur deserves to be heard.
I really hope this new development has a yogurt shop……..
I know contractors who will not do business in Decatur any longer, and a small contractor who had to hire a facilitator/expediter simply to interface with City folks on a ground level porch addition. Tom, it’s great if you had good experiences, and we have too over our many years here, but that is not how it always goes, even when it should. I do not live in the shadow of this proposed development, but I can understand how people could be justifiably concerned about the impact of the additional vehicles on their traffic and parking. There is already ‘resident only’ parking. How will that be enforced when folks live in the 315 building? And it seems idealistic to suggest that residents only who walk in will support the retail.
And several of those streets are ‘resident only’ parking, because the city has given virtually all of the businesses on the west end of downtown Decatur (e.g around the taco place) a parking variance, meaning, the city has said that it’s okay that those businesses don’t have enough parking spaces for their expected amount of business. The houses in that neighborhood are old, and many don’t have driveways. If the signs weren’t up, the residents would be parking a few streets away from their homes. This is the same situation as those homes on the east side of downtown Decatur, near the Avondale MARTA station.
“If the signs weren’t up, the residents would be parking a few streets away from their homes.”
So then what’s the problem?
You clearly have never carried in young children, unloaded groceries, etc. While it may be a public street and you can beat the “anyone can park there” entitlement drum all you want, try to have just a little empathy.
You misunderstand my question in response to Levity, whose statement implied that residents aren’t having to park far away thanks to the signs. Maybe I misunderstood the statement. As far as an “entitlement drum”, it sounds like you support the idea that people should be entitled to public parking because they chose to buy a house without parking or enough parking to meet their “needs”.
You are right, I misunderstood your comment. And, no, I don’t think they are entitled to parking. But I think we, as a community, should try to make it available to them.
“I don’t think they are entitled to parking. But I think we, as a community, should try to make it available to them.” — Huh?
Are there that many houses close to the lower end of downtown that don’t have driveways? Maybe I just haven’t noticed when I take walks in those neighborhoods.
There’s a fair amount of homes without driveways on the streets leading down to Ponce. Must have been built when there was still public transportation and a vehicle wasn’t a household necessity. Early on a Sunday morning, it’s a good place for new drivers to practice parallel parking. Everywhere else doesn’t have enough cars parked on the street to practice and later in the day there’s too much traffic on the classic parallel parking streets like Ponce.
I’m sure you’ll be surprised, DF – but I totally disagree with you. Providing parking to houses that people bought while knowing the house didn’t have parking – that’s really what you want our government to be worried about?
My wife and I bought a condo with one assigned parking space. We have one car. If we had another car, I wouldn’t expect the HOA, the city, or anyone else to make it convenient for us to park that car. I believe that many people are trying to force a multi-car lifestyle into properties that were built for one car.
Shocked!!!
We may always disagree on this, but a good deal of us residents have lived on these streets well before there were any retail establishments on this end of town. I am actually not on one of those resident only parking blocks, but i don’t think it’s right that their parking should be taken over by retail shops, because people are not willing to park (freely) downtown and walk. I feel the same way about the people who live over by Avondale MARTA and others in this situation. first come, first served. squatter’s rights.
Beyond that, it just doesn’t make sense to me to intentionally be cruel to these neighbors. why?
“Beyond that, it just doesn’t make sense to me to intentionally be cruel to these neighbors. why?”
That’s more than a bit of hyperbole, don’t you think? After all, it’s not like the neighbors you speak of have seen no benefit from the increased vibrancy of downtown.
No hyperbole intended. I do actually think it is cruel to take away a resident’s ability to park near their house, when they’ve had that ability for many years. I don’t know what you think of when you imagine these neighbors, but I mostly think of older people with mobility issues.
And yes, long time residents have certainly reaped the benefits of rising property values, but we/they have had to live in Decatur when it wasn’t “Decatur.” And many of us aren’t particularly interested in enjoying the new night life downtown. Again, I truly believe most of us would like to be left alone more than anything.
I get that this development could cause some traffic problems, but I’m not really understanding the parking issues being brought up. The amount of retail proposed and its positioning doesn’t sound like it would lead to an increase in street parking, or at least not a significant increase. Isn’t part of the parking deck going to have validated parking for the retail?
‘
“Isn’t part of the parking deck going to have validated parking for the retail?”
It will have parking for retail IF the future residents only have one car per household and ~60% of them leave during the day. The parking spaces are to be shared theoretically under these assumptions. But don’t take my word for it, check out the developer’s plan.
Come on over and take a walk through our neighborhood, Brianc. Please see for yourself.
Parking Shmarking, If that is even in the lawsuit, its just thrown in there to grasp at straws. The whole reason we are still discussing this is because of 1 guy on the 6th floor that filed a lawsuit. Why can’t people see that he is just trying to get the 6 floor deck lowered to 5 so he can maintain his view?
All this other stuff seems like he is just trying to make it appear as if he is acting on behalf of the lower 5/6th’s of the condo owners that are going to have blocked views anyway, and on behalf of all of the rest of Decatur. Who would give $10,000 to Mr. Gannon, beside maybe 6th floor people? And I still want to know why no one else joined him in the lawsuit, not even fellow 6th floor people?
As loathe as I am to wade into this debate yet again, we are single-family Fairview residents “in the shadow of the development” and were informally approached about maybe signing on to this lawsuit and/or financially contributing to it. We declined on both counts because, frankly, while we had our own issues with the development early on (which Carter and the city, in our opinion, worked in good faith to resolve to the best of their ability) and still do, we feel like these types of actions at this point are merely stalling tactics with no concrete endgame, and largely misrepresent how the review process has progressed. I guess part of me understands the “I’m out of bullets but I can throw the gun” mentality of the plaintiffs to try something — anything — to halt the development on a technicality. But to what end? That lot is going to be developed eventually. If it’s not Carter, it will be someone else, and who knows if that project will be more or less desirable and if the developer will be more or less likely to work with the community? I’m sorry, but the “low-density brownstones” ship has sailed, and it ain’t coming back.
The tack that the plaintiffs and those sympathetic to them seem to be taking at this point is to sidestep the developer and direct their ire at the city, suggesting that it somehow rigged the process, ignored resident concerns and sold the neighborhood down the river. That has not been our experience. I think it’s human nature to sometimes conclude that not getting our way must mean the process was flawed, and sometimes that is true, but in this case I genuinely don’t see how they can argue that with any degree of credibility, as I suspect the courts will bear out.
Look, all things being equal, we’d rather not have this going up behind us either. And we still have concerns (mostly related to parking, more cars speeding through a kid-filled neighborhood, etc.) I have considerable sympathy for the condo folks who will go from a horizon view to a wall of concrete out their window. But I’m also able to separate all of those concerns from what I recognize in the final tally is something good for our city and even our particular section of it. And emphasis on the word “city,” because that is what we live in. I think a lot of folks tend to forget that. Yes, we have a 10-year plan and other guidance to help steer how development happens, but it’s not synonymous with the building code. When you buy in to residing in downtown Decatur — be it a single family home, a condo, or whatever — you accept a lot of the realities that come with that. Or should.
Thank you for that well-written comment.
Thanks, Lump, for such clear, calm, well-reasoned, candid comments that perceive and acknowledge contrasting perspectives and competing agendas. AND correct use of the word “tack.” (“The tack that the plaintiffs…seem to be taking” — one of my language pet peeves is when people use “tact” in that context.)
Thanks, y’all.
As an editor by trade and a wannabe sailor, proper usage of “tack” is right in my wheelhouse.