Thread View: cor.general
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Roger Schmeltz
Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00
No vote on Meadowlark annexation!
Author: Roger Schmeltz
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00
38 lines
2284 bytes
2284 bytes
Here is a copy of another letter submitted to GT by another resident of SW 45th street. Another annexation in southwest Corvallis, so soon? No, in fact Corvallis voters are being presented with two annexations - an industrial park and a subdivision of 31 homes. Why do we need another 83 acres of industrial land, when there are well over 400 acres of vacant industrial land already within the city limits? Why should we add 5.37 acres of land for residential development, when there are about 1,300 acres of such land inside the city limits? In fact, city approval to build on many of these parcels has been obtained by developers, but they have chosen to delay construction. The demand and need for housing is obviously not as great as some claim, or these lands would not still be vacant. Annexations for large subdivisions seem endless in west, and southwest, Corvallis, yet this corner of the city has been seriously shortchanged when it comes to parks. The existing Comprehensive Plan notes a shortage of neighborhood and community parks, and includes a policy that land for parks should be acquired in advance of urban growth and development. Nonetheless, the City Council approved all these annexations without seriously addressing the matter of parks. In the City's opinion, this area is adequately served by Starker Arts Park and Sunset Park. I am not convinced that three softball fields comprise any kind of a "park," in the normal sense of the word. As for the Arts Park, while dandy for rock concerts, it has none of the usual amenities of the better city parks, although it does have five picnic tables, two portable toilets and a duck pond with water unsafe for swimming or wading. Let's defeat both these annexations, and hope future developments, under the new Comprehensive Plan, will address the needs of current residents.
Re: No vote on Meadowlark annexation!
Author: DJ Dre
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00
22 lines
1332 bytes
1332 bytes
As for the parsk....? >>> As for the Arts Park, while dandy for rock concerts, it has none of the usual amenities of the better city parks, although it does have five picnic tables, two portable toilets and a duck pond with water unsafe for swimming or wading. <<< It just goes to show, that when folks don't like an issue, they will throw up anything they can in its way. This arguement is a good exampl. I think Starker Arts Park is a fine park. No, it's not as large as say... Avery Park. But one park cannot be all things to all people. Regardless... the points made that I am drawn to is the drainage issue, and the vote issues. 4 to 4 in both Planning Commission *and* City Council... both needing the deciding vote to sway it? I'm leaning towards voting no. But I may have to chat with a some folks that are on the Planning Commission, to get a better idea. Andre
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads