Postby Ken » March 4th, 2015, 5:47 pm
Regarding the Carver Crossing development...
1. That anti-group on facebook has been active over the last several weeks. Obviously they are very biased in their views seeking any data and twisting it whichever way possible to try and prove a point which was contrary to the statistics which were shown. It's as if someone scared the group, and was very effective at doing so despite what the actual statistic shown. The whole group got very blood thirsty for any shred of evidence that would show that somehow this was going to affect crime levels.
2. Many of their points were strongly misrepresented to stop this development. Too-big and too-soon was the motto they went by. Meanwhile single family developments have been popping up there over the course of a few years with no regard for crime concerns. If you listen to their arguments, SOME, but not all really were worried about the diversification of the neighborhood. Some even admitted as much via postings that were made on Monday about some article about Somali's needing housing. One poster who posted frequently on that forum even commented as much "That's what I'm afraid of" before eventually her comment was removed later.
3. If anyone watches the meeting video which is posted on the town website, the strongly disliked team explained in perfect english there thoughts on why they were for it. A. Concerns for crime were unwarranted. B. They have a plan for crime prevention for the increase in population. C. They will need new schools / updated infrastructure regardless. Mike Webb, the new mayor covered that point by point.
4. Constant misrepresentations. - Since then that facebook group has thrown out comments how Mike said here was "zero need" for senior housing. If anyone watches the video what he stated was that a few years back, they had a study or report done and it said at that time, there was "zero need". Mike continued to comment during his deliberation, "I'm sure that has changed some since then" and that they would be "looking at it again", but in an effort to defame and libel Mike Webb, some have been perpetuating these comments several times over.
5. The group has had many posts which have since been deleted which have shown people who oppose this project being painted with communist rhetoric. This has been posted regarding the current committee as well as the few posters who have posted in their group, opposition to this. Some right mind people have spoken out against this to help lasso the group from becoming ugly.
6. "Alternative" projects the group had suggested were expressed as a 10-20 unit development. I'm not sure if many developers go through the trouble of developing something that small. The alternative solution they were trying to provide was not a logical solution.
I think they will have their opportunity to replace their whole city council over the course of the next several years and much of their talk is about that. That's the power they should have. However, I think they will find when they are in similar positions, that they can't grow their whole city with people who own houses with household incomes in the $100k-200k only crowd.