November 4, 2006

• What is wrong with the newspaper?

  I picked up the Edmond newspaper this
  morning after I got home from posting some campaign signs, and on the
  front page I saw yet another article in which the writer misunderstood
  their topic. This morning, Greg Elwell, a man noteworthy for his lack
  of precision, stated:

  "Remember-- if you want houses instead of stores, vote 'No No Yes Yes.'
  If you want stores instead of houses, vote 'Yes Yes No No'."

  For some reason (I would assume because of some deceit on behalf of the
  "Better Edmond" organization), every person in my town thinks that
  voting NO NO YES YES in Edmond's upcoming election means that housing
  absolutely will be developed on the land south of Hafer Park.

  That is just not true.

  Voting NO NO YES YES only means the land in question will remain zoned
  residential, as was the desire of Edmond's forefathers. Residential
  zoning means that the land may be used for churches, parks,
  neighborhoods, and educational facilities, and that such civic
  structures may legally go in there. However, they must pass three
  checkpoints before any change can be made on the land:

  1. Said project must pass by a majority vote of the planning commission.

  2. Said project must pass by a majority vote of the city council.

  3. Said project must not be petitioned by a certain number of Edmond
  residents (number based on previous election turnout) to a city-wide
  vote, and then voted down.

  For example, if HUD housing were proposed to go into the land south of
  Hafer Park, but it failed to pass one of those standards, then HUD
  housing would fail to be developed. The same process would go for any
  church, school, neighborhood or park.

  This is why voting "NO NO YES YES" DOES NOT mean houses absolutely will go in.

  However, since the commercial development in question has already
  passed through City Council, this petitioned vote is the last chance to
  stop it from going in.

  So, please, think about it. It's not a matter of stores vs houses. It's
  a matter of traffic inflation/flood plain devastation/green belt
  destruction vs preservation of all those things.

  Vote No No Yes Yes if you want to give the land surrounding Hafer a
  chance to grow into what it was originally desired to become.

  • 6:29 pm
  • 2 Comments