High Density Development: our "Savior". So say the Bartow Political Class.
Strawmen arguments used to support High density development. (Last in a series).
It is official. The Bartow County Commissioner Steve Taylor wants high density development to be the main type to occur in Bartow county. So do the wealthy land owners of large properties, wealthy land developers, the county staff and the political class. Now they say this will preserve “greenspace”, but these are strawmen arguments that are fooling no one.
This is last in a series on High density development on the blog. See the FULL SERIES HERE! Coming up: ESG and the use of DEI and CEI to make woke corporations harm all of us.
At the County Commission meeting last Wednesday 4/12, the County Commission (meaning our sole county commissioner) approved the Aubrey Corp Planned Greenspace Development District. The commissioner accepted staff and Aubrey Corp changes to numerous conditions - all to favor high density development (i.e. removing buffers that would have required more greenspace). But the county commissioner, staff and entire developer club did NOT change the language allowing houses with 7,500 square foot lots in R-1 zones that only legally require 15,000 square foot lots under current zoning. Thus they invented an entire new type of zoning in the Aubrey Corp land that does not exist in the rest of the county: R-1 with 7,500 square foot lots (otherwise known as R-8, or “high density”).
The commissioner and all the developers have been working on a talking point that is repeated by all parties over these last few months. The talking point states “high density” development will preserve “greenspace” and “prevent suburban sprawl”. Landowner Bob Neel (Aubrey), even described the High Density development as the “Savior” of Bartow County. He stated: ““People need to stop looking at high-density developments as ‘oh my, the sky is falling, we’ve got to stop this,’” he said. “What you should be looking at is not the number of units going there, but the amount of green space that you’re going to be preserving by doing this — it makes sense from a development standpoint, it make sense from a land planning standpoint.”" (It is sad that our local newspaper only offered the positive comments in support of the PGDD in their puff piece coverage of the meeting. They gave one sentence on the opposition of any type merely to set up an apologetic for high density development. Once sentence in 3 pages of coverage.
Strawmen arguments mislead on resposible development versus high density development.
A Strawman argument is a phony assertion designed to mislead and confuse. Think of a scarecrow in a field. It confuses the birds. These arguments are exactly what are being used by many pushing high density development. A more familiar phrase relating to these arguments would be FAKE NEWS!
One of the strawmen arguments goes like this: “If we have high density development, we can preserve greenspace by not selling farms and bulldozing forests". One look at the future land use map above shows that this is not the goal in Bartow County. The goal is high density development all along the man highways and extended very deep back into the county from there. (see the map at top of the article). *see latest future land use map in footnote1. Don’t be fooled. “low density” really does mean “high density”).
Another strawman argument goes like this: “If we have high density development, then we won’t have ‘suburban sprawl’” Really? Does it seem like there won’t be suburban sprawl on the future land use map in all those yellow areas (see map above)?
Another strawman argument: “High density development is the ‘savior’ of Bartow County”. Really? How is Bartow County saved when we have high density development intended up and down Highway 41, along Burnt Hickory, Mission and Sugar valley roads and Highway 20 and 411? (see future land use map at the top).
Another strawman argument: “Young people want these small houses and townhomes and can’t afford a larger lot”. Really? If we built more homes with three homes per acre, the stock of housing would go up. More supply means lower costs. Also, younger families do grow and want larger yards later. They don’t want cracker boxes. We shouldn’t deny them the American dream of saving value in property by building only cracker boxes on matchbox size lots. We can do better.
Another strawman: “Most people can’t aford to buy 3 or 5 acres and biild a house”. This was asserted by Bob Neel last week and Commisioner Taylor in recent past. The goal is 3 houses per acre when lot size minimum is 15,000 squate feet. Not 6 per acre as in hugh denaity. But silly fake news is a preferred argument to support high density development.
Look at the Aubrey Corp plan (below) and we see what is going to happen. All the area in beige will allow high density housing at 7,500 square feet per lot (six homes per acre). There is a cute mathematical solution devised in the Aubrey conditions that does a “net density” of no more than two acres per lot. That will be because they will calculate the area on top of ridges as part of the development since it is not practical to build there any way. This is a bait and switch. (Note that the plan is still being changed to remove some of the light purple mining area in the southeast corner to allow more high density housing).
In conclusion. High Density Development is winning, but can still be stopped.
This series of articles has shown how high density development is the goal. We have shown that the World Economic Forum wants people living in human containment areas in small homes. The rest of the Land, the WEF wants to be removed from all use - even for growing food.
But this is not the end. The citizens of Bartow will just have a harder time protecting the county. The solution will be constant vigilance by citizens and action at zoning meetings and county commission meetings. If a high density plan is offered in your neighborhood, organize to change it to something responsible, like low-density single family housing. This can be done and works. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.
In Freedom!
