The Real Deal

By Sharman Egan Lagniappe columnist

There’s something brewing in Spring Hill, and it’s not just the Brazilian Oro at Carpe Diem.

A year ago, I reported on the efforts of a neighborhood organization formed in March 2006, The Village of Spring Hill. The group’s stated mission is “to make The Village of Spring Hill a neighborhood center by improving the pedestrian, aesthetic and commercial amenities of the area.”

Just one year after its founding, the group had racked up an impressive list of accomplishments. It had held two annual meetings, developed a Web site and newsletter, planted over a hundred trees, organized a successful Clean Up Day, obtained grant funding and built new sidewalks. The president of the organization, Linda St. John, said the group had even bigger plans. It had been awarded a $300,000 grant that would be used to develop a comprehensive plan for the commercial district.

Fast forward one year and the group has undoubtedly fulfilled that promise. Last summer it hired a prominent urban planning firm, Dover, Kohl & Partners. The planners held a series of meetings in the fall to gather public input. The resulting plan adheres to many of the basic principles of “new urbanism.” After the plan was presented to the community in November, the group received kudos from Smart Coast, developers and many others.

Everything was moving along nicely until it turned out the city’s current zoning regulations make many of the requirements outlined in the plan illegal. Whoops. So the group fought – successfully – to get a five-month moratorium on commercial development, buying time to convince the city to pass new regulations. The group has developed two new ordinances. The Mobile City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and vote on the ordinances at its May 1 meeting.

So what’s the big problem? According to an e-mail from Linda St. John seeking support from residents of the Oakleigh Garden Historic District, some local developers are opposed to the new ordinances. “We are flying our planners in to combat any negative responses and we anticipate this meeting to be somewhat contentious,” she said in the e-mail.

As soon as this e-mail landed in my inbox, I started calling around to get more details on why developers are opposed to the ordinances. Turns out no one wanted to talk to me – at least not on the record. That’s a sure sign of a nasty battle brewing,

Finally I spoke with Doug Anderson, an attorney with Burr & Forman and a resident of Spring Hill. Anderson said he had been contacted by “8 or 10” property owners in the last several days, and he will represent some of them at the upcoming Planning Commission meetings.

He explained why the plan had suddenly become so controversial after months of discussion and what appeared to be widespread support. “When the plan was first presented, it was presented as a sidewalk and beautification plan,” said Anderson. “Property owners weren’t told about the invasive regulations and ordinances.” When the group made the ordinances public in mid-March, opposition began to develop.

Anderson says a number of people who supported the group financially in the past are now opposed to its plan. A check of the Web site appears to bear this out. The site shows a list (updated on 4/15/08) of about 100 donors for 2008, including four “patron” level donors who have contributed $1,000 or more, and four “sustainer” level donors who have contributed between $500 and $999. The previous list (dated 4/7/08) showed almost 500 donors for 2006-2007 with 26 at the patron level and 21 at the sustainer level.

There may be a perfectly good explanation for why the number of the donors has declined so dramatically. After all, we’re just four months into 2008. But the two lists do seem to support Anderson’s statement.

Anderson explained that his clients (who he declined to identify) are opposed to the ordinances for two reasons: they aren’t financially feasible, and they are a violation of private property rights. He explained that owners who re-develop or expand their property would have to comply with the new ordinances, and the costs of doing so would be prohibitive.

For example, according to Anderson the new ordinances would require many owners to give up portions of their property for wider sidewalks and roadways. They could be required to pay for new sidewalks, streetlights and landscaping in the public right-of-way. Many owners would be required to build a two-story building even if they only needed or wanted one story. According to Anderson, not only would the costs of these requirements be prohibitive but, in some cases the lots are so small that, after giving up property for required sidewalks and alleys, the lots would no longer be buildable.

“It will stagnate these commercial properties, making them harder to sell. It will decrease property values,” Anderson said. “It’s just not right.”

St. John said she’s concerned about misinformation that’s floating around. She encourages anyone with questions to visit the blog on the group’s Web site (www.thevillageofspringhill.com). “It summarizes the ordinances in lay terms and gives you an opportunity to ask specific questions,” she said. The site also includes links to the actual ordinances for the brave among you.

The Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on May 1 at Mobile Government Plaza, 205 Government St. While these ordinances are specific to Spring Hill, the results of the meeting could affect other neighborhoods in the future.

Sharman Egan is Lagniappe lagniappe columnist. Contact her at Sharman@SharmanEgan.com.

Archives