Michael, "your" is not the proper word to use when you want to say "you are". That would be "you're". It is a common mistake, but if YOU'RE going to criticize others about spelling and grammar then get YOURs cleaned up.
Gmann has insight into this issue that the rest of us have somehow missed. Let me see if I can summarize: some teens in Poland, Canfield and Boardman dress funny and experiment with drugs - and that doesn't happen anywhere else in America, I'm sure. But if we change the zoning in Poland Village and build 24 apartments, the kids will behave and the property values in Poland will go up. Yes, it's so clear to me now. How did we miss this solution? Seems like your comments would be more appropriate in the thread for that "drug bust" story in the May 7th paper that you keep referring to. This particular column is about zoning changes.
Lombardo says "The property in question is too close to RT224 for single-family homes to be viable." What? My home is 40 ft from 224 and it seems plenty viable to me. And while Gmann loves his drug bust stories, the actions of a few delinquent teens are not relevant to this issue, which is a change in zoning that would most likely devalue the homes in the neighborhood. They are not mansions, they are simply homes. But any home, no matter where it is located, is the most significant financial investment most people will make in their lives, and the desire to protect that investment seems like a natural, justified reaction.
The validity of zoning was established in a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1926, Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.,3 in which it was determined that the exclusionary nature of zoning was appropriate and in the public interest as a means to reduce nuisances, and as such overrides the interests of individual property owners. This case almost by itself guaranteed the validity of zoning as a rightful use of the state's police power, and led to its importance as the most significant tool of land use, and of planning, yet devised. The zone plan, by comprehensively districting the whole territory of the city and finding ample space and appropriate territory tor each type of use, is decidedly more just, intelligent, and reasonable than the system, if system it can be called, of spotty ordinances and uncertain litigations about the definition of a nuisance.
I live in the area, and like most of my neighbors, I try to keep my property attractive, clean, and neatly groomed. A house adjacent to me became a rental 3 years ago. For the past 3 years it was rented and no attempt to improve or beautify the property was ever made. The opposite happened. It deteriorated. Renters have no incentive to improve where they live. I don't blame them - I was a renter for many years, and part of the appeal is that you don't have to concern yourself with the outside of your building. Great for them - bad for the neighboring homes. The lot concerned is not zoned for this type of dwelling. Perhaps "Foxtrot", who commented above, could use Google Earth to find a plot of green space in the area that IS zoned for apartments and the developer could set up shop there instead. Zoning is in place for a reason. For instance, I would love to see new businesses move into our area, but I don't want a factory or a "Cheap Smokes" store built smack in the middle of a quiet neighborhood. This is an example of why we have zoning, and why we should respect it. If I have to get variance and pay a fee just to build a small shed on my property, how can they throw up a 24 unit complex (does that mean 48+ parking spots?) a few lots away?
East Side hayride more horrible than haunted
Michael, "your" is not the proper word to use when you want to say "you are". That would be "you're". It is a common mistake, but if YOU'RE going to criticize others about spelling and grammar then get YOURs cleaned up.
October 28, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Valley-made film produces outrage
Always a good sign when a movie trailer has a misspelling. Beserk = Berserk.
October 16, 2011 at 12:34 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Some Poland residents oppose apartments, cite congestion
Gmann has insight into this issue that the rest of us have somehow missed. Let me see if I can summarize: some teens in Poland, Canfield and Boardman dress funny and experiment with drugs - and that doesn't happen anywhere else in America, I'm sure. But if we change the zoning in Poland Village and build 24 apartments, the kids will behave and the property values in Poland will go up. Yes, it's so clear to me now. How did we miss this solution? Seems like your comments would be more appropriate in the thread for that "drug bust" story in the May 7th paper that you keep referring to. This particular column is about zoning changes.
May 12, 2009 at 6:24 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Some Poland residents oppose apartments, cite congestion
Lombardo says "The property in question is too close to RT224 for single-family homes to be viable." What? My home is 40 ft from 224 and it seems plenty viable to me.
And while Gmann loves his drug bust stories, the actions of a few delinquent teens are not relevant to this issue, which is a change in zoning that would most likely devalue the homes in the neighborhood. They are not mansions, they are simply homes. But any home, no matter where it is located, is the most significant financial investment most people will make in their lives, and the desire to protect that investment seems like a natural, justified reaction.
May 11, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Some Poland residents oppose apartments, cite congestion
The validity of zoning was established in a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1926, Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.,3 in which it was determined that the exclusionary nature of zoning was appropriate and in the public interest as a means to reduce nuisances, and as such overrides the interests of individual property owners. This case almost by itself guaranteed the validity of zoning as a rightful use of the state's police power, and led to its importance as the most significant tool of land use, and of planning, yet devised. The zone plan, by comprehensively districting the whole territory of the city and finding ample space and appropriate territory tor each type of use, is decidedly more just, intelligent, and reasonable than the system, if system it can be called, of spotty ordinances and uncertain litigations about the definition of a nuisance.
May 4, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Some Poland residents oppose apartments, cite congestion
I live in the area, and like most of my neighbors, I try to keep my property attractive, clean, and neatly groomed. A house adjacent to me became a rental 3 years ago. For the past 3 years it was rented and no attempt to improve or beautify the property was ever made. The opposite happened. It deteriorated. Renters have no incentive to improve where they live. I don't blame them - I was a renter for many years, and part of the appeal is that you don't have to concern yourself with the outside of your building. Great for them - bad for the neighboring homes. The lot concerned is not zoned for this type of dwelling. Perhaps "Foxtrot", who commented above, could use Google Earth to find a plot of green space in the area that IS zoned for apartments and the developer could set up shop there instead. Zoning is in place for a reason. For instance, I would love to see new businesses move into our area, but I don't want a factory or a "Cheap Smokes" store built smack in the middle of a quiet neighborhood. This is an example of why we have zoning, and why we should respect it. If I have to get variance and pay a fee just to build a small shed on my property, how can they throw up a 24 unit complex (does that mean 48+ parking spots?) a few lots away?
April 28, 2009 at 8:07 a.m. permalink suggest removal