18 on Park

[Plutonic Panda]

I don't know how we'll survive...

I'm sorry, I know I said I wasn't posting here anymore, but I have to respond to all of this non-sense.

Who is saying we will not survive? All we're saying is Edmond can have better. In the long run, Edmond will lag behind Norman and eventually Yukon, Moore and Mustang. Now, Edmond is already behind Norman. Norman has a much larger population and has more developments going on. You can point to OU being the reason for that, but bottom line is, they have a city council that is more progressive than ours even though they denied a high-density project a year or two ago. No one here is saying Edmond will not survive.

[Plutonic Panda]

Because it required rezoning a single residence property into a PUD, required putting dumpsters on park property, required running sewage through public park property, and would drastically increase traffic in front of one of Edmond's oldest parks. And it's not like Edmond is short of developable land. It also wouldn't meet normal fire and safety requirements, and they were asking for exceptions to those rules.

So lets look at each concern of yours.

First off, what is the issue of rezoning this into a PUD? This will benefit Edmond. This would've raised property values AND provided the city with more tax revenue than than a single residence would.

The dumpsters will be ON SITE "- Utilities, guest parking, and trash collection will all be handled on-site after a few small tweaks to the site plan. " The park will not be affected in anyway.

The park will actually become more lively and safer due to more people living next to it. Parks will built for people, were they not? Do you expect to drive to every park surrounded with single family residences?

Sewage running through park property is interesting. Is there not a current sewage line they can tap into? By running it through you mean running it under? I'm sure plenty of parks have a sewer line running under it. What is the issue again?

Drastically increase traffic? Are seriously telling me 18 new residences is going to drastically increase traffic? The road is going to be barely has any traffic as it is. Have driven around that neighborhood? I drive around Edmond all the time for fun and to see what is going on and every time I'm here there is minimal traffic. Also, you ought to factor in where downtown Edmond is, or now it should be might be, going. The people living in this development are likely going to be geared towards a more active lifestyle. For someone that lives in single family home next to this development that takes a car across the street to UCO, a person in this development is more likely to walk there, thus them choosing this type of living to begin with.

It actually exceeded fire requirements where they planned to place sprinklers in every residence. This isn't going to be a retirement home where an ambulance is going to be there every day. This would have likely been occupied by younger, more healthy and active people seeking an alternative to endless cookie cutter sprawl crap that has been approved all last year with the usual one or two people complaining about increased crime and traffic, but always passed with flying colors.

Edmond is not short of develop-able land and that isn't the point. This location was actually perfect. I couldn't think of a better location for something like this. It is on an existing historic park that will be better utilized with a more active demographic, it is in a low traffic area, it within close proximity to a university, it is close to downtown, it is also close to a medium sized shopping center. I mean there are always a million other places you could put something in the eyes of a million different people.

[Plutonic Panda]

Great development in a great location. Too bad for Edmond. Their loss.

Yeap. I hope the developer takes this too OKC or Norman. I would really the developer collect the info after a year or so that shows no drastic increase in traffic, probably a lower crime rate, if they place it next to a park a noticeable increase in foot traffic traffic, and the additional tax they gained vs. a single family house and mail it to the city of Edmond showing the cost of their ignorance.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's unfortunate to see a great project in my hometown killed by a misinformation campaign. Husky is a great guy and this would have been a first-class development and unlike anything in Edmond. I have a feeling we'll be hearing more from him in the future...

I really hope anything future he does is around downtown OKC or Norman. Deserving towns that are on the brink of greatness.

I don't know Husky, but I'm sure he is a great developer and this really looked to be exactly of what you said.

[Plutonic Panda]

Great example of Loki's wager. We can niggle over quantification and how much of an increase is too much, but that's going to differ on a persons personal opinion so there is no point once someone starts playing those type of games. Its all moot anyways since this development is dead.

So I've seen you use this twice in a fairly short period of time which causes me to think you just discovered this term. I knew nothing about it and went and researched it- this is what I got:

Loki's Wager, a form of logical fallacy, is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed

- Loki's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So how did Krisb's post cause you to think he thought the concept of drastically increased traffic could not be defined? He clearly outlined it and knew what it would take to cause a drastic increase of traffic as he said 18 additional people won't cause a drastically increase to traffic.

Will traffic increase? Sure. A three year could tell you that. Will it drastically increase? No. Who lives in a city like Edmond that constantly has a clusterfuk of traffic and the complains about an additional 18 people moving next door? I mean we a suburb of a major metropolitan area. How do you not expect to have some traffic?

[Plutonic Panda]

A single small road leading to 18 new residences wouldn't increase traffic?

You're now the one pulling the true scottsman debate. You originally said a drastic increase of traffic now you're claiming just an increase.

Traffic will increase. Assuming there is a 100 or so cars that rely on that road to get in and out, on average, that road will see 200 cars a day use it. Now it will be 236 cars a day. Wow. What a drastic increase. About 18 new cars going out and in which amounts to 36 new cars a day and 99% of the time there won't be more than one or two cars traveling the same way at the same time on that road. Like I said, I go on that road all the time, and there has been one or two instances where I've been behind someone or they've been behind me when I was driving on that road.

[Plutonic Panda]

I was think of a good location for this project. There is an old brick house with lots of land behind it on Bryant just across the street from the aquadic center. There is a new nursing home next to the property. Anyway, I was thinking that if would be a good transition from singe family to office/etc. Also being across from a large park with walking trails. Near shopping and hopefully on the bus route. The land is most likely already planned for something.

That is a good location for something like this. Hey, I know, what about, bear with me here, ANOTHER development like this that will again be a better use of the land? How about that.

[Plutonic Panda]

What misinformation? That's the thing. Most information I've seen is from their own filings with the city. I'd love to hear something otherwise that was missed...

There were people saying these were going to be apartments for rent. That is not true.

There were people saying there was absolutely no fire protection. That is not true.

There were people saying there was no guest parking and guests would have to use the existing parking lot used by the park visitors. That is not true.

There were people saying the proposed development was going to devalue home prices. That is not true.

You yourself posted misinformation claiming the trash collection was going to be off-site on park property. That is not true.

There were people claiming there was going to be an increase of crime and that the park was going to be "molested" by the renters who don't care about the surrounding community. That is not true. The homes that would be for sale were going to have active occupants that would use that park and by having more people watching the park, would have decreased crime.

You sir, are either (a) trolling (b) spreading ignorance (c) have an agenda or bias and purposely lying. The facts are there. Extremely dense cities that are unable to have firetrucks and ambulances go in parts of them are able somehow to survive and take car of what arises, despite of what oklip says, I'm sure there is a way to do it. Perhaps if I get bored tomorrow at work, I'll do some research on it and post how they are able to do it.

[Plutonic Panda]

I just know I often get confused reading your posts. Maybe I'm the one on something.

Just curious: what exactly confuses you about my posts? Perhaps I misspell my words, but I strive to use proper grammar whenever I notice I misspelled something. I am very careful about that and I notice you misspell words all the time. One area where I sometimes have trouble is properly using punctuation. Please let me know whenever that happens or I can't fix it if I don't know I'm doing that.

If you could be specific, that would help.

[jerrywall]

My replies. I disagree with quite a bit.

There were people saying these were going to be apartments for rent. That is not true.
Can't speak to that... didn't do it or see it.

There were people saying there was absolutely no fire protection. That is not true.
Again, can't speak to this since I never claimed this, nor saw it claimed. I do know it's true that emergency vehicles would be unable to enter the property.

There were people saying there was no guest parking and guests would have to use the existing parking lot used by the park visitors. That is not true.
I didn't see that, but I did see people mention that they wanted to use park parking for overflow parking. That's in their variance request, so that's data from the developers.

There were people saying the proposed development was going to devalue home prices. That is not true.
That's your opinion.

You yourself posted misinformation claiming the trash collection was going to be off-site on park property. That is not true.
Actually, it is true, from every report. Evidently, from their variance request, they were requesting an easement to put the dumpsters on park property. If it's not true, they were the ones lying, or there's a massive lie out there. Feel free to provide evidence of the negative

There were people claiming there was going to be an increase of crime and that the park was going to be "molested" by the renters who don't care about the surrounding community. That is not true. The homes that would be for sale were going to have active occupants that would use that park and by having more people watching the park, would have decreased crime.
Blah blah blah, lots of opinions.

You sir, are either (a) trolling (b) spreading ignorance (c) have an agenda or bias and purposely lying. The facts are there. Extremely dense cities that are unable to have firetrucks and ambulances go in parts of them are able somehow to survive and take car of what arises, despite of what oklip says, I'm sure there is a way to do it. Perhaps if I get bored tomorrow at work, I'll do some research on it and post how they are able to do it.
I'm not even going to justify this

[jerrywall]

In fact this backs up several of the points..

http://agenda.edmondok.com:8085/agen...#ReturnTo27980

[jerrywall]

You're now the one pulling the true scottsman debate. You originally said a drastic increase of traffic now you're claiming just an increase.

Traffic will increase. Assuming there is a 100 or so cars that rely on that road to get in and out, on average, that road will see 200 cars a day use it. Now it will be 236 cars a day. Wow. What a drastic increase. About 18 new cars going out and in which amounts to 36 new cars a day and 99% of the time there won't be more than one or two cars traveling the same way at the same time on that road. Like I said, I go on that road all the time, and there has been one or two instances where I've been behind someone or they've been behind me when I was driving on that road.

Do you even know what a true scottsman debate is? You've got some learning to do on fallacies.

As for traffic, that road feeds the park and what, 10 or so houses currently. You're talking about tripling the number of residences it supports, and it's a narrow road (narrower than most in that neighborhood.

[jerrywall]

And here's the thing... you seem to want to imply something nefarious or some plot intent to me. I'm honest, I do have an interest. I grew up in this park and neighborhood. My family still lives there, my friends live there, my kids play there, and some day my grandkids will, with luck, walk to this park and play there. And I don't just spit at a screen and rant and rave on message boards. I've been active in trying to help Edmond grow and be a wonderful, diverse, and vibrant community, my entire life. And before that it was my father, who as a councilman was very influential on much of the progress, and involved in projects like Arcadia lake. And my grandfather. And we've owned businesses in town, were some of the earliest grocers, and have setup and run multiple non profits.

Does any of this make me more qualified or make my opinion more valid than yours or anyone elses? Of course not. But it's to show that my opinion and feelings come from a place I hope yours do (although you've repeatedly made it clear youre leaving Edmond ASAP and you can't wait) - A desire to have the best Edmond possible. We just differ on how we think it will happen.

So quit taking things so personally, quit with the accusations of lying and trolling, and just understand that folks can have a difference of opinion without stomping off.

[jerrywall]

Just curious: what exactly confuses you about my posts? Perhaps I misspell my words, but I strive to use proper grammar whenever I notice I misspelled something. I am very careful about that and I notice you misspell words all the time. One area where I sometimes have trouble is properly using punctuation. Please let me know whenever that happens or I can't fix it if I don't know I'm doing that.

If you could be specific, that would help.

Well, for example, you asked me to provide a list of all the Edmond projects I support, and when I reply that the ones I don't support are very very rare, you said "That's pretty much what I thought." So not sure what your point was in the first place.

[huskysooner]

Hello everyone.

As you all have likely read. Lance and I decided not to proceed with the development. We came back to the City of Edmond with another revision (submitted the revised PUD on 12/23) after engaging in detailed conversations with the Edmond FD. They were explicit with what it would take to gain their buy-in (specific dimensions for a "hammerhead" turnaround for their trucks) for the first time in mid December, and we raced to implement these changes into the plan. Although we believe the revised site plan (slightly different than the one shown on the website) met every concern of the city's, we again received feedback ahead of the Planning Commission meeting that the plan would not be supported by the city staff due to perceived congestion issues. I again emphasized the word perceived, as every aspect of the plan complied with the letter of the law, including state and city code. The truth is, rezoning in Edmond requires that you go far beyond simply meeting those requirements. We didn't have the appropriate respect for this ambiguity and I think we learned our lesson, although it was a tough one due to the effort and care we put into this project. This neighborhood really was the perfect place - we just didn't have any advocates who also believed that.

To the points raised in the thread about the plan, you are likely working off of out-dated information and filings.

1) All utilities would have been handed on site, we had dedicated a 10' wide utility corridor on the northern property line to handle everything. No trees in Fink Park would have been affected and we long ago abandoned the idea of building a dumpster on Fink Park property that would be shared by the development and the park (an idea originally proposed by a city of Edmond staff person).

2) Including legal on-street parking on the 26' wide main street in the community and dedicated guest spaces, we could have accommodated 13-15 guest vehicles beyond the two garage spots per home that were going to be provided. This exceeds normal requirements.

3) The push back from the FD on committing emergency vehicles to the community was based on perceived potential congestion (which is subjective). We even offered to sprinkle certain or all units, but that did not satisfy. Upon submitting our final PUD app, we believed we had given the FD exactly what they asked for. They later rejected the plan - which remains confusing to us.

4) Half of the information in the newsok article was incorrect. This journalist never contacted Lance nor I for information...not once over her half dozen articles. We would have been happy to speak with her. Also, the quotes from Lance in her latest article came from an email Lance sent to the City Planning Dept. that he had no idea would be immediately made public. Not that it matters.

In sum, we are really disappointed by the city's lack of support for something beyond the status-quo as well as by their confusing process. We gave it our best shot, tried to give the powers that be everything they asked for, and lost a bunch of money in the process. We thought Edmond (and still believe) was ready for this, but it is going to require a mindset change at the city level. This project didn't get anyone excited in the least. This was a side project for the both of us, so I'm not sure that we will pursue something in the near future. Long term, we'd love to bring the pocket neighborhood concept to the metro.

[Plutonic Panda]

In fact this backs up several of the points..

http://agenda.edmondok.com:8085/agen...#ReturnTo27980

You data is outdated and incorrect. A new variance was going to be requested. See Huskysooner's post. You are wrong again.

[Plutonic Panda]

My replies. I disagree with quite a bit.

Facts are facts. The only part that is opinion is my questioning of your motives and the traffic increase; the fact that homes were going to be for sale as with the rest of my post with the exceptions I pointed out, are facts.

[Plutonic Panda]

Do you even know what a true scottsman debate is? You've got some learning to do on fallacies.

As for traffic, that road feeds the park and what, 10 or so houses currently. You're talking about tripling the number of residences it supports, and it's a narrow road (narrower than most in that neighborhood.

True Scottsman debate is where criteria is changed to defend yourself. If I say that all Scottsman cook their rice with milk and then you turn around and tell me you are a Scottsman and don't do that and I say "only true Scottsman do" then that is me changing the criteria to defend myself. I never specified exactly what it was I was actually talking about.

In this case you did in fact specify, but when challenged with the usage of the word 'drastically,' you were quick disregard that and removed it from your post when you then said it only increase traffic, but not drastically. You left that part out. You changed the criteria of your post in doing so. That is a perfect example of the True Scottsman debate.

[Plutonic Panda]

And here's the thing... you seem to want to imply something nefarious or some plot intent to me. I'm honest, I do have an interest. I grew up in this park and neighborhood. My family still lives there, my friends live there, my kids play there, and some day my grandkids will, with luck, walk to this park and play there. And I don't just spit at a screen and rant and rave on message boards. I've been active in trying to help Edmond grow and be a wonderful, diverse, and vibrant community, my entire life. And before that it was my father, who as a councilman was very influential on much of the progress, and involved in projects like Arcadia lake. And my grandfather. And we've owned businesses in town, were some of the earliest grocers, and have setup and run multiple non profits.

That's awesome. I to have family and friends that live over there. I to have developers that built homes, office complexes, and other developments in Edmond, Dallas, OKC, Norman, etc. One of my relatives owns about 10 different shopping malls in SoCal. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Does any of this make me more qualified or make my opinion more valid than yours or anyone elses? Of course not. But it's to show that my opinion and feelings come from a place I hope yours do (although you've repeatedly made it clear youre leaving Edmond ASAP and you can't wait) - A desire to have the best Edmond possible. We just differ on how we think it will happen.

Well sir, if you think Edmond is going to become great by more Walmarts, cookie cutter tract housing, endless strip malls with fast food restaurants all over the place and reserving parks to be surrounded by single family homes with no diversity in development, then I'm quite sure what to say.

So quit taking things so personally, quit with the accusations of lying and trolling, and just understand that folks can have a difference of opinion without stomping off.

Sorry I care about the city and get pissed off when we keep denying the good stuff.

It's interesting to me you were in favor of most new developments this year in Edmond and that doesn't surprise me. Most new developments were the same cookie cutter tract housing, home style office complexes, fast food joints, and strip malls. We got a few good developments that were passed, but most that were actually really worth getting excited for were scrapped or denied. Now we find out Covell is likely going to be another worthless shopping center like the travesty that has engulfed Yukon. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with the same sh!tty movie theater Yukon has as well.

Edmond loves to talk about big development and 'oh boy, this city is going places,' but it isn't. This city is growing, a lot of cities grow, doesn't make them great. Midland is growing, but that place is a wasteland. Edmond is just going to go the same place it has been. Edmond is more than likely going to be engulfed by crime and ghetto housing if they keep allowing this same crap to be built. Have you gone out and seen the quality of some of the new houses being built?

We get a wonderful proposal for a new housing development unlike anything in the city in a great location that will compliment a historic park by creating a community of people that will actually live right next to and care for the park unlike most who just park their car for a couple hours, this will be their backyard so to speak. You have yet to provide any solid facts other than the sole point that fire trucks won't be able to turn around yet are unable to respond to my questioning of if other places that have similar developments with narrow roads that are unsuitable for fire truck and ambulance access, how are they able to do it? That is a genuine question. I am not trying to be a smart ass. It is something I need to look up for myself.

The other part of it, fire sprinklers are being added. Why was that left out from most of the discussion I heard take place regarding this development? There are also fire hydrants as well.

There is dedicated guest parking. The dumpster will not be on park property. Guests will not park on park property. The homes are for sale. Could a homeowner decide to rent out a house? Sure. It's called freedom. Any home around the park could be rented out. The developer was going to sale them as for sale housing.

This campaign that the people opposing this development was nothing but the typical fear mongering that reminds me of a little girl sitting in the middle of a barren desert hugging a dead polar bear. These people, you included, are not doing their research. The link you provided about the proposal to be up for the planning commission was continued and was going to be brought before the city council as I understand and it was going to be revised and significant changes were going to be made. That's why they didn't approve it. So what you are reading, is not what they were planning on building in their latest proposals. What you are proving is either you are misinformed or intentionally spreading around misinformation.

I'm sure whoever Huskysooner is will take this concept, build it elsewhere, make a lot of money, and add value to a community that deserves it. That community obviously isn't Edmond. Edmond will probably end up with a single family home on this property that will be a run-down rent house in 10 years and provide a fourth of the tax dollars that would have been generated had this development gone through.

A huge change in leadership is needed in Edmond. Sad day and I Jerry, I really think you are probably a good person, but I do not understand why you object to some of the things you do and why you are not presenting proper information.

[jerrywall]

OK midtowner, er I mean plupan. Hard to tell the difference sometimes with the tone of your attacks.