“Just Say No” is a commonly heard bit of public advice. As in, “Just say no to drugs.” Although usually directed at young, possibly impulsive people who may not consider the consequences of their actions, my advice to Just Say No is addressed to an older audience – Eastern Shore city planners and city council members. And while their actions may not be impulsive, they may all-to-quickly accommodate a request that will result in long-term harm to their communities.
So what is it I want these fine citizens to reject? I want them to Just Say No to individual requests to change zoning and land-use ordinances. Before you dismiss this as a knee-jerk conservative response by some old coot who hates change, you need to think about land use regulations (including zoning) and what they are intended to do for the public good.
In case nothing comes to mind, let me share a few of my thoughts on the virtues of zoning. Lots of places don’t have zoning, but virtually all cities do (Houston may be the only big-city exception). Zoning provides a way to plan for land use in a manner that balances economic value and quality of life. In addition to maintaining this balance, zoning provides consistency so residents can feel secure in knowing their neighborhoods will not change suddenly based on some administrative action on land use made at city hall. And zoning allows owners and developers to plan future land use with a good understanding of where and what they are allowed to build.
Sounds pretty orderly doesn’t it? The rules are clear – at least until somebody starts agitating for a zoning change. Then speculation and uncertainty take over. The approval of a high-rise on the bay in Daphne could serve as a case study of what’s wrong with re-zoning and making one-time exceptions to land-use ordinances. When the request came to the city to re-zone (more like spot-zone) a site to allow the high-rise, the answer should have been a clear, “NO, it’s simply not permitted.” But what happened was something completely different. Even in the face of public opposition, the request for re-zoning was considered and approved – purportedly because it seemed like a modern thing to do – besides the land had been sold based on its use as a high-rise site.
This quick approval initiated a year-long, very distracting and divisive debate on what to do next. How would the city meet the future requests that were certain to come for similar high-rises? If they had turned down the original request, justified by simply following existing city ordinances, they wouldn’t have had this problem. Although no high-rise has been built on the bay, the reasons are economic not legal. I have no doubt that since the council has allowed them, the high-rises will come. And with them the loss of quality of life associated with creating what some residents are calling “Gulf Shores North.”
This is history. But if you live in Fairhope you should pay attention to these events, having happened just a short hop up US 98. You need to understand the value of maintaining zoning and restrictions on land use. And learn this real fast, because the city government is in the process of considering a request to change land use ordinances to permit a big-box store within the city limits.
Not too long ago the city council passed a regulation that limited the square footage of any retail store to a size that would effectively keep out the likes of Wal-Mart – or any other retailer that needed a large structure to operate economically. While this couldn’t keep Wal-Mart from building just outside the city limits, the rule does help “Keep Fairhope, Fairhope” – at least with respect to the scale of commercial buildings.
This current challenge is to allow a Publix market to be built on the Dyas property in the “Triangle” at the north entrance to the city. Although a Village Center, as called out in the city’s master plan, is to be built there, there are no allowances for a big store. The appeal to the planners and council members is that getting a Publix is important for the residents and that will happen only if there is relief granted from the size restriction.
This is a perfect time for everybody involved on the Fairhope side to consider this simple analysis: carefully considered ordinances were enacted to keep big stores out. Publix is a big store. Therefore, as appealing as Publix may be, there is no compelling reason for letting them build under a special exemption.
But there’s an interesting twist to this situation. Within sight of the Village Center-cum-Publix proposed by Dyas, is Arthur Corte’s Fly Creek development. It is further along in the approval process and has a unique element in its plan. Years ago, when the Art Corte applied for annexation into Fairhope of what is now Fly Creek, he asked for zoning that would permit a shopping center with a big traditional supermarket. This was approved and he needs no exception to land use ordinances to accommodate Publix at his site. So Fairhope shoppers can still have their Publix – just a few hundred feet further north on Greeno Road.
Fairhope council members and planners, remember this: You know the rules on big box stores in Fairhope – enforce them firmly and fairly and from the very start: Just Say No.
Contact Pete Gleszer at jubilee@lagniappemobile.com.
Archives
Jubilee
