Petition Tag - overdevelopment

1. Resist Commercial Exploitation of The Mall, Walthamstow

We hope you will join us in resisting the plans for ugly commercial exploitation of the public open space around The Mall, Walthamstow.

Plans by the owners of The Mall, Capital and Regional, are at an advanced stage, and there have been two public exhibitions of their developing thoughts. The original proposal for a 27 storey block (!) seems to have been amended somewhat and they are now speaking of blocks of flats within a height range of 9 - 29 stories.

Their plans to extend the covered-in section of The Mall outwards and take away about one third of the public open space (including some mature trees) remain unaltered.

There is still time to limit the outrageous heights suggested and save the character and function of the open public space right in the centre of the town. We have altered the wording of our petition to take account of C&R's amended proposals but the original one which now has over 2,400 signatures (most of them collected off line) will of course be submitted also.

2. Don't Overdevelop Denver

Denver and its neighborhoods are undergoing a very rapid transition. Zoning laws dictate what can or can't be built on a given lot. Historic Denver determines what buildings are historically significant and therefore cannot be demolished.

But what about the effect on the city and its neighborhoods when demolition and new development happen at a pace more rapid than the city can keep up with? What about the effects on traffic, crowding, parking, and overall quality of life? When the new zoning code was put into place, it clearly didn't take into account the effects of mass demolition and new construction happening on multiple sites, all at the same time. It also didn't effectively ask for input from the everyday residents of these neighborhoods. The face of our Denver neighborhoods is changing at such a rapid pace that the traffic and quality of life are already deteriorating, renters and homeowners are being pushed out, and yet there is more demolition and development in the works.

Determining the historical significance of a building doesn't take into account the bigger picture. Many current residents of these old Denver neighborhoods chose this area because of the reverence for Denver's history, older structures and character. Many of those structures do not fall under protection from Historic Denver. What will be the impact to a neighborhood when so many structures, historically significant or not, are gone? In many cases houses are not being demolished here and there, one at a time, but rather developers are buying up and leveling entire blocks of houses to make way for luxury housing, replacing a block that had history and character with buildings whose character and design add nothing aesthetically and will soon enough be outdated, much like the many structures which followed a similar trend in the 1960's and 1970's.

The Mayor of Denver and Denver City Council must take a more active role in this process, and include Denver residents as well. It is not enough to say that because the zoning code and historical designation say a block of homes can be demolished and built on, that the demolition and development is therefore inevitable. It is still their job to ensure that the change and development that affect current tax paying citizens happens in a way that ensures it is done responsibly and retains the quality of life that brought us to these neighborhoods in the first place. If demolition and development happen too rapidly, it is a detriment to all. The luxury apartment bandwagon is pushing more and more renters out. Demolitions are forcing many homeowners out of their homes. In addition, too many luxury apartments combined with limited options for home ownership allows less personal investment by individuals and creates a more temporary attitude for the area. Once the market becomes oversaturated, and/or the high cost rents of these "luxury" apartments have excluded enough of the population, there won't be enough renters to fill these buildings. There is a lot of outside money being used for speculation on our neighborhoods. There is no personal investment there.

Secondly, putting too many people in an area whose roads are not built to handle the volume will decrease quality of life for all. One of the many example of this is in the area south of downtown Denver: there are already major traffic bottlenecks in areas along Speer, Broadway, and 6th and 8th Avenues, and it is now pouring over onto side streets that cannot handle the volume. It is not enough to encourage car shares, bike rentals, and a mass transit system that is already struggling. The reality is that in Colorado most people still own and rely on a car to reach parts of Colorado that the alternatives don't, and they need a place to park that car. And to insist that everyone will simply never drive around town if other transportation modes are encouraged is totally unrealistic. The fact is that our current mass transit system is not built to support this.

3. PROTECT BEARSTED - save Lilk Meadow

People, friends of Bearsted we really need your help, please sign this petition and show your support in protecting Bearsted from over development.

50 houses are potentially going to be built on Lilk Meadow aka the bogs. An area of natural, green beauty that floods even after an hour of rain! It will have a massive effect on the infrastructure of Bearsted besides taking away more of it's charm. We also really need as many people as possible who care to come next Thursday (19th March) 6pm Maidstone Town Hall when they will make the decision.

At the moment the developers and council believe that only 3% of Bearsted residents have objected to this application and that 97% of Bearsted residents approve of this.

Please help Protect Bearsted, sign this petition so we can go along on Thursday and prove them wrong! We do all care.

Please give us your support.

4. Objection to the proposed development of the former Western Suburbs Hospital land

In 1997 the State Government stopped rebuilding Western Suburbs Hospital. The land sat vacant until 2002 when NSW Health entered into a Public Private Sector Partnership. The partnership was with Catholic Healthcare (CHC).

The partnership built a small scale community health centre not a hospital and a nursing home. Finally the partnership was dissolved and the land sold to CHC. Who now run the nursing home. The final stage of development is to build an Assisted Living development of 123 dwellings.

This is a great idea as this style of aged accommodation is needed in the area. The only thing the residents object to is that the residences are to be in 3 six storey towers. This petition is to get the height of the towers reduced to building more in keeping with the local area.

5. Save Harcourt Avenue from overdevelopment

At a Sutton Council planning committee in December, the controversial decision was made to grant planning permission for land to the rear of 1-8 Harcourt Avenue and 32 Manor Way, Wallington for unpopular development of the site against a vast majority of residents' wishes.

This has been described as a sad day for local politics and a betrayal of local residents. Wallington North (the council ward) is already above SW London and London as a whole for averages of population density.

The authors of this petition, Ken Andrew, (Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Carshalton & Wallington), Councillor Eric Howell, Neil Garratt and Jason Hughes (Conservative council candidates for Wallington North) believe that planning affecting local areas and communities must be a bottom up process taking into account and reflecting residents' views.

6. Prevent North Lake Tahoe Overdevelopment

Boulder Bay, LLC is proceeding with its proposed redevelopment of the Tahoe Biltmore and the former Tahoe Mariner properties. A previous on-line petition (posted March 14, 2008) requested that Washoe County reject a Boulder Bay application for right-of-way abandonment and variances associated with their proposed roadways. Thanks, in part, to everyone who signed the petition, Washoe County did reject that application. In response, Boulder Bay will be modifying its road plan.

Meanwhile, other very significant issues are now under consideration, foremost of which is the large scale of the project. As currently proposed, the project would include over 850,000 sq.ft. of buildout (eleven buildings), constructed on 15.06 acres, the combined acreage of the Tahoe Biltmore and Mariner sites. The eleven proposed buildings would range in height from 55 ft to 85 ft and would exceed existing height and density restrictions.

To move forward, Boulder Bay must obtain approval from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) for significant changes in certain ordinances and agreements . An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been commissioned, and the TRPA is seeking public input as part of this process. A meeting, to determine the scope of the EIS, is scheduled for Wednesday, August 13, 2008, at the North Tahoe Conference Center in Kings Beach.

To accommodate the large scale and high density of the project, Boulder Bay is requesting a “special height district” and a special designation of timeshare use that would significantly increase allowable density. Also, Boulder Bay wants the TRPA to modify the Agreement that presently restricts development on the Mariner site. Rather than 3 single-family dwellings, with designated open-space and public park areas, as specified in the Agreement, Boulder Bay proposes to construct a condominium complex comprised of four, multi-story structures.

The project also entails Boulder Bay securing entitlement to additional Tourist Accommodation Units (TAU’s), the means by which the number of hotel/motel accommodations are regulated. The type of accommodation historically defined as a TAU rarely exceeded a one-bedroom unit, or in other words, a basic hotel/motel room. Boulder Bay now wants TRPA to allow construction of large, multiple bedroom residential condominiums as Tourist Accommodation Units. The effect of expanding TAU’s in this manner would be to greatly increase population density, while at the same time decreasing available parking.

This petition is intended as a means of informing the TRPA of community opposition to the large scale and high density of the proposed project. This opposition includes: 1) saying no to a special height district; 2) saying no to modification of the Tahoe Mariner Settlement Agreement; and 3) saying no to applying a single TAU to an accommodation exceeding a single bedroom and 4) saying no to expanding timeshare use.

7. Deny approval of 'The Ellington'

A petition opposed to the project known as
‘The Ellington’.

Also see ashevilleparc.org and mvalliance.net to get a better idea of the development issues that are facing Asheville and Western North Carolina.