Newspaper Page Text
GUEST EDITORIAL
THE GRAND ILLUSION
As the ACC Comprehensive Land-Use Plan
approaches its conclusion, many Athens resi
dents sense that a sellout is underway at City
Hall. Concerns focus on an extremely important
and essentially irrevocable decision that will
soon be made by the Commission—one that will
define the physical landscape of our future.
During the Mayor and Commission work ses
sion July 20, the citizen-government partnership
characterizing earlier phases of the land-use
plan process was absent as the Guiding
Principles took another heavy blow.
The Guiding Prin r iples are the criteria
adopted by the Commission to steer the land-use
plan process, and represent the commitment to
incorporate the ideas and vision of a large,
diverse group of citizens. Included are directives
to preserve the beauty of our community and be
responsible stewards of its environment; to enact
land-use policies that avoid urban sprawl and
conserve resources; to support policies that offer
a variety of transportation alternatives; and to
include the community in an open process of
decision making.
But at the work session, the Guiding
Principles disintegrated as the Commissioners
conducted a straw poll to determine preferred
options for permitted density in areas to be des
ignated as a rural zone, or "greenbelt." The
greenbelt is a land-use concept designed to pre
serve the rural character and uses of outlying
areas and to redirect investment inward for
urban revitalization.
On that evening, Commissioners BaiTOW,
Chasteen, Jordan, Kilpatrick and Sims supported
a compromise rural option that provides incen
tives for developers to cluster homes and pre
serve green space. With expected densities of
one unit per 2.5 acres, this option promises, at
best, a watered-down version of the greenbelt
originally proposed at one unit per 10 acres.
The remaining five Commissioners—Carter,
Farmer, Ford, Logan and Sheats—preferred a
one-unit-per-acre option that seems certain to
deliver irreversible sprawl. Far more lenient th^n
our current development standard, it contains no
incentives to cluster homes or to preserve nat
ural features and will likely result in an expan
sive and more rapid rural buildout.
SMART GROWTH VS. SPRAWL GROWTH
Smart growth is characterized by efficient
utilization of existing infrastructure, together
with preservation of diverse land uses and nat
ural areas. The close proximity of places where
people live, work, play and learn are a priority,
and transportation alternatives are both viable
and available.
In contrast, sprawl growth is an extravagant
and inefficient use of the land, with develop
ment extending beyond existing infrastructure
and resulting in a broad separation of the locales
defining dai|y activity. Transportation acc' s and
service delivery are critical but require increas
ingly larger proportions of tax expenditures.
Benefits of sprawl growth are short term and
illusory, as citizens eventually pay more to get
less.
Since the land-use plan process began late in
1997, ACC citizens have enthusiastically
endorsed smart-growth principles. Many con
tinue to believe that these concepts have been
incorporated in the proposed plan.
Unfortunately, that is not the current reality,
denying us the smart growth outcome we have
anticipated. Now, with more than $500,000 in
public funds invested in the plan, ACC officials
stand on the brink of choosing land-use provi
sions most representative of back-door discus
sions that have gone largely unnoticed by the
public.
Unfortunately, none of the rural-zone
options being considered can salvage the orig
inal citizen-supported vision for the county. But
if Commissioners choose the one-unit-per-acre
option for the rural zone, it will unquestionably
be their most damaging choice. Even the eco
nomics are suspect, given that taxpayers would
have to provide subsidies for infrastructure
(roads, water lines, sewer systems, schools) and
services (police, fire, bus) that far exceed the tax
revenues generated. Add to that the negative
impact on quality of life from hidden costs of
compounded traffic congestion, increased pollu
tion and loss of tree canopy and wildlife habi
tats.
In addition, the public subsidies that support
new development at the outer fringes of the
county will diminish incentives to direct growth
inward—to rejuvenate older in-town areas like
Baxter Street or to redevelop abandoned com
mercial shopping centers. The transformation of
pastures and forests into subdivisions is particu
larly undesirable, inasmuch as it is not required
for accommodation of the county's projected 40-
year population growth. Indeed, urban residents
have understood all along the necessary tradeoff
of higher densities in their own neighborhoods
in return for preservation of green spaces in out
lying areas.
WHY DEVELOP THE RURAL ZONE?
Commissioners defend their preference for a
ore-unit-per-acre greenbelt out of a genuine
concern for their rural property-owning con
stituents. They dismiss the notion that all prop
erty in the greenbelt is in danger of sprawl
development, given that it could well remain in
its current agricultural use for years to come.
But the reality is that time passes; people do
move on, and they are often willing to sell
Kgardless of the intended use. A case in point is
the current rezoning petition for a 56-acre
homestead along Barnett Shoals Road, gener
ating neighborhood anxiety about higher den
sity and increased traffic congestion, not to
mention the loss of acres of tree canopy.
Commissioners are also concerned about the
rights of property owners and impacts on land
values, particularly if arrangements for the
transfer of development rights prove unfeasible.
Minimized is the fact that land values are usu
ally enhanced, not devalued, by nearby green
space. Other, oft-expressed concerns about
inequitable tax burdens are also overstated,
given the availability of generous 85 percent
assessment abatements granted by State
Conservation-Use contracts for farmers and rural
landowners.
Many rural residents do, however support the
greenbelt concept. Some of the most contentious
rezoning requests in the past 12 months have
involved greenbelt properties. Residents along
Jefferson Road, for example, have recently
opposed at least three major petitions, with a
fourth coming up this month. If carte blanche
were to be handed out by Commissioners in the
form of one unit per acre, greenbelt residents
will very likely be deluged with unwelcome
development and will not even have their pre
sent recourse to resist.
DON'T SELL OUT CITIZENS
Now is the time for the Commission to take
stock and reflect on what makes Athens dif
ferent from other communities. They should
honor their commitment both to ACC citizens
and to the planning process that will shape our
community for years to come—to make Athens
better, and not just bigger.
Sue Custance, Carl Jordan, Clint McCrory,
Dorothy O’Niell
[Carl Jordan is a candidate for the ACC
Commission—Ed.}
COMMUNITIES
RK HURRY, Offer Ends August 16
S)
f 2-4 Bedroom Apartments
with Great Furnishings
and Tons of Amenities!
m security mmsm
• Rents Starting at $250
• Pool & Hot Tub
• Individual Leases
506 Rh/erbend Parkway • Athens, Georgia 30605 * 353-0779
I
e
B\
PARTY
ON THE
PATIO
SUMMER
MELTDOWN FIESTA
THURSDAYS
8PM-UNTIL
AMERICAN
SOUND DJ
LATINO, SALSA,
MERENGUE AND CURRENT
FAVORITES
Try Our
Meltdown
Margarita
Frozen ’Rita with Your
Choice of Liqueur
ItfilO Atlanta liny.
513-2299
5
I
NORMALITY
That's why the only thing
normal about us is our name!
Come check out our newly renovated
properties all located in Normaltown
and available for the Fall!
1
JSE NDS GUT. C O «V
♦ # • 1 , • •
uiQtso^qt^ Vjsoyv
* “. ip * .
A A * TO GS
Jr
CONTACT*? OB ;APP'T.
ori'IHE ’op'xauu
g
s
TWIRL! AMD UELTDOWM MARGARITA!
.4^ * *■
706-M6*0fta\
AUGUST 9, 2000