Sunday, November 15, 2009

Appeal to whom?

So the city council voted 10-0 in FAVOR of rezoning the neighborhood where 96% of the homeowners do not agree. Hmm? Is there something wrong with this picture? Why would city council, who obviously doesn't live in the area or give a RAT's ASS what those living there want, piss off the neighborhood who vote for them? Could it be money? Were people given an incentive to look another way?

For those not involved directly - here's what the media doesn't let you know:

Two homes were bought by the church where the back half of the 1 acre properties were made part of the PUD rezoning request - how was this accomplished? The city has been arbitrary in grating special privileges in the zoning process:

· Although the ground floor has open air view from the ground floor to the ceiling 65 feet above, the height is being interpreted by the planning staff to be only 40 feet. The opening to 65 feet is through circular holes that the chandelier suspension passes through.

· Although the building has almost 30,000 square feet, they are only providing an additional 100 spaces, and “sharing 197 spaces with the adjacent meeting house. The application calculates the parking requirement based on 7,000 square feet.

· Although the largest traffic component comes from the Temple Visitors , these traffic numbers are not included in the applicant’s traffic report.

· Although a General Plan Amendment is required for a rezoning over 10 acres, the applicant is not being required to file and amendment.

· Instead of the application listing the intended uses and activities on the site, they are being allowed to define their uses as “just like the Mesa Temple ”. Questionable considering that is in a different municipality.

· Does the fact that 96% of the neighbors in a one square mile, (centered on the site) have signed petitions in opposition, carry any legal weight?

· Thelda Williams stated at a neighborhood meeting, that the other council members will all vote for this and one of them will make the motion to approve, so she avoids angering her district.

It's interesting how people online keep trying to slant this against the Mormon religion when any building by another name would be equally as fought against. It's an eyesore because it stands over 100 feet tall including the illuminated (lit up/glowing/whatever) spire! Stop trying to make this about your religious persecution and realize it's those who LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD that are being ignored and persecuted. We live here, we chose to live here for a reason, and any building that blocks the skies and diminishes our way of life is oppressing - build it across the street near the water park or in Surprise, as I understand a location was already approved there in case this doesn't work out.

Those representing the church and the church themselves continue to talk about making concessions and being good neighbors when it's just lipspeak because if they really gave a shit they'd move it elsewhere. No one is saying you can't build it but it doesn't suit the area which is why you are left forcing it down our throats. LDS made this about their religion; their members made this about their religion - not the neighborhood.

This is my home; I don't care if my home values increase as I plan to retire here. I'm not looking to regain what I've lost - break even - and look at this eyesore. And YES, there will be an increase in traffic - blowing through my neighborhood streets with no sidewalks, for our children to be in jeopardy of those bypassing church traffic.

How city council can simply ignore the letters, protests, and outcrys during meetings is beyond me. Is their dollar that powerful they can override an entire community who actually LIVES there? It's so infuriating - the system doesn't work - it's bought and paid for.

So we have hired a lawyer, contributed time, work, and money to the cause to file an appeal. Only the lawyers win...Living in America!

No comments: