Here are two opposing views on the proposed Larchmont project that I thought were worth highlighting. For background, go to his post.
First, resident Laura Burke:
I thank Esther Manheimer who has been hearing the “elitist” neighbors’ concerns. I directed the following letter to her:
First the project is completely out of scale with the surrounding community. MHO points out their 3-story project on Clingman as a comparison, but hey, Clingman adjoins downtown and their are many taller buildings with in a few blocks. So really it is not comparable.
Second in order to make the project a reality, you and the other council members must vote down the decisions of past city leaders and the Unified Development Ordinance, which was devised to protect our city, in order to change the zoning. Not to sound ugly but… I hope you all realize how self-absorbed this makes you guys look as a group (and frankly it may be true for some).
Lastly, I have asked several folks from MHO to please consider altering the plans and scale back the height. They have absolutely no interest in entertaining that what-so-ever. As a matter of fact, they act as if I did not even suggest it! If this was a private, for-profit developer they (I hope) would be jumping through all kinds of hoops to comply. Also, MHO told me a large portion of the apartments would likely be inhabited by elderly. Well, most elderly cannot live anywhere other than the first floor unless there is an elevator, which I believe the Larchmont does not have. It appears to me and many others who do not even live near the project that MHO has you guys in their pocket.
Oops I thought I was done. I was told that the affordable apartments on Clairmont are not full. If that is the case, what does this say for the need to even have this in the first place??
Just so you know, my tone and words are not meant to attack. I’m just upset that this need to re-zone is even being considered.
Next, from Asheville City Councilman Gordon Smith:
As a candidate I ran on increasing density on our existing transportation corridors and incentivizing affordable housing there. By moving in this direction we will preserve open spaces and increase the number of working people who live in proximity to downtown. We can utilize existing infrastructure, costing taxpayers less.
The difference in traffic between 32 and 60 units, while it exists, does not in my mind disqualify the project. It’s currently zoned to contain, among other uses, a strip mall, which would bring quite a lot more traffic than what’s currently proposed.
The neighborhood backs up to an urban corridor, and my view is that we must utilize our corridors for increased density rather than creating the sprawl that comes with forcing affordable housing to the margins. Having received nearly a hundred emails from people on both sides of this issue, I’m very glad to see so many people engaging their government.
It’s my firm belief that the project is a big win for affordable housing, corridor density, open space preservation, and public transit usage.
8 Comments
"When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be
borne, resistance becomes morality." –Thomas Jefferson M.
deStael, 1807.
Councilman Smith only represents HIS own agenda. Too bad those pesky residents and taxpayers don’t just lay down and SHUT UP! He and the rest of the Councilpersons made up their minds way before any public knowledge of this "ill conceived plan". We have such desperate need for affordable housing in this area, yet a simple search on the internet turns up over 100 rentals at the same prices or below, within walking distance of the site, WITHOUT all the public funding! Seems UNCA students can always find affordable housing.
Start TODAY to get these "public servants" out so maybe we can find someone/anyone that might actually represent the people.
Remember who put their names on this project and who told us all that there weren’t any concerns over: TRAFFIC, FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS, INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS and Density. When you see the BIG LARCHMONT (Staples of the North) they build at great expense to the taxpayers, remember WHO had a chance to stop or alter this and WHO would not listen to the people paying for this. To those who were to represent us and DID NOT. Take heed.
"In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness,
some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will
discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve."
–Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.
I attended the Planning and Zoning meeting as well and agree 100% that it was a joke, or rather a filibuster on how great MHO is and how great this MHO project will be. The opposition of the Larchmont Project had no time or consideration during the presentation, there was no debate about the Zoning Law. This is no surprise considering how embedded the Planning and Zoning Commission is within the MHO organization.
This building is totally out of scale for the area it is going to look like a Hampton Inn looming above Merrimon.
Merrimon Avenue is already a Planning disaster why add insult to injury by making it more crowded?
How is the City going to pay for the up fit of infrastructure when they are already in terrible debt?
I attended the Planning and Zoning meeting wednesday night, and I am here to tell you it was a joke. The whole thing was staged for this developer to come in for nearly 2 hours and dazzle the crowd with their high tech 3-d images that without a doubt cost thousands of taxpayers dollars. Then when it came time for some public imput, the 3 minute timer came on and the earplugs came out. Nothing said in the defense of maintaining the current zoning was taken seriously, yet several advocates for the developer stepped up to the mic and praised them for all their great work which was totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. I was however quite surprised by Mr. Byers bold move to reject the developers proposal for the Urban Residential Zoning. He knew he would no longer feel the wrath since it was one of his last sessions on the P&Z board.
The fear of what they could put in place of this project is wrong. I will gladly send you a link to the city “institutional zoning” rules. There is NO way anyone could put in a 10 story building there but they certainly CAN put the fear out there. I do believe that we are looking at the new “Staples” of the north. It will make everything around look small by comparison. Should make a lovely view from Gracelyn and Merrimon Ave. Also, when the Fire Department is hindered/blocked and their “response times” go up while waiting for the new traffic to move out of their way, SO WILL OUR COST OF FIRE INSURANCE as well as the number of casualties and amount of property damage. Watch the traffic accidents go up, up, up. I will not buy the one car per hour estimate because the people I know without cars actually have to have people come pick them up to take them somewhere and then bring them back to drop them off which results in double the car trips of the people who have their own cars. Think about how many working folks you know that do NOT own a car? Remember you heard it here first, but were already too committed to the project to really question your decisions to approve. Will the taxpayers views and questions be considered? Does 300 names and comments on a petition even make a blip on the radar to Planning and Zoning or City council? It will be surprising to see just who will be watching and paying attention!
I’m surprised that Councilman Smith suggests that if not the 60 apartment project, then the dreaded strip mall. What surprises me is that Council is about to take away the neighborhood protections in the current zoning to allow this out-of-scale project — but by the same token, they can always further restrict the zoning of the site to prevent any nefarious uses. Council has the power to designate the zoning – either more or less restrictive. And, as an aside, Councilman Smith doesn’t mention that greenways and parks are allowed under the current zoning, but would be forbidden if they vote to conditionally up-zone the site.
jik- i’m sure the developers would like to something besides let the lots sit… its tough to do when the banks pull the funding on the projects.
Lets do somthing about all the places that sit half developed first. Think about the big hole on Coxe Ave or the Skyloft project or the Hunt Hill condos or the place down on the river near UNCA that was supposed to be condos. All of these places need to s**t or get off the pot. I am sick of looking at these brown fields. These developer should be forced to do somthing besides let these lot sit until the economy turns around.