UPDATE: Friday May 9th:
My original remarks on the Elkhorn corridor do not address the possibility of any given commercial development, or any certain big box store. Considering the possibility of a big box store, there are a few likely objections: (1) that the store would be contrary to an existing plan (Elkhorn Road as a part of the east Whitewater plan), (2) that the store would be contrary to the common expectations of homeowners who expected no more than residential development nearby, or (3) that the store’s location would be impractical.
It’s possible to oppose the development of a given big box store – as I do in this case – without regard to a prior or proposed plan. Points (2) and (3), together or individually, could reasonably lead to a rejection of a large commercial proposal. That’s an equitable, and not a plan-based, decision.
It’s true, too, that Point (1) could lead to rejection, on the basis of an existing plan, and neighbors’ expectation of its continuation.
Points (2) and (3) are sufficient for me.
Often, when I think about commercial alternatives, I am describing alternatives that would be nowhere near Elkhorn Road. The question remains: will those commercial alternatives – light industry – come to Whitewater? I’m not sure how much of that will arrive. We may find that residential options are the more likely, and will continue to be so.
The May 5th Planning Commission meeting involved discussion of different options for a south Whitewater plan along the Elkhorn Road corridor. The meeting did not involve taking any action – it was merely to present a revised proposal from two earlier options.
(Whitewater’s often-cited master plan for planning is really a collection of documents for neighborhood plans. They act as guidelines for municipal planning, and one for the south of Whitewater would be the fourth in a quartet. The Elkhorn Road corridor was considered previously in a east Whitewater neighborhood plan.)
During citizen comments, someone asked if the final proposal might be submitted to a referendum. (The conventional procedure is for Planning Commission approval followed by Common Council certification.)
I’d side against a referendum: (1) starting out at a referendum would be a departure from prior practice, and (2) if a referendum would apply in this case, there are other equally significant maters where it might apply, but has not been used.
There will be additional meetings before the planning Commission votes on a final proposal. The proposal as it stands involves different nodes for development, some being commercial, and some residential. The Whitewater bypass plays a role in all these plans – it channels traffic around the city, but may yet aggregate commercial or residential development along some stretches.
Some favored the bypass as a way to reduce traffic in the city, but others opposed it. Those opposed were concerned that it would reduce shopping traffic, or would spoil the areas near their homes immediately or after additional development.
What if there was no neighborhood plan (and did not have to be one), and no zoning or other restrictions? What would happen to the Elkhorn Road corridor? There are a few possibilities: (1) no change, (2) predominantly residential growth, (3) predominantly commercial growth, (4) a mixture of residential and commercial.
From a libertarian point of view, you’d hope for the result with the least government intervention, and if government intervention, then that which would most closely follow private growth.
A consultant from planners Vanderwall and Associates noted that Whitewater is about fifteen miles or so from several major arteries with significant commercial development. Over the last year, I would have said that the best option would be to encourage commerce to come here, to complete with other locations, and increase jobs for Whitewater. (Generally, and not specifically in the area in consideration at the may 5th meeting.) That result would seem especially needed in light of our poverty rate.
If we took no government action, and there were no zoning restrictions, would that commerce show up? That is, if there were almost no barriers to setting up shop here? Or, would more residential housing come instead? I don’t know, but I wonder now if the more likely answer is residential, and not commercial.
If that’s the case, then Whitewater will have to ask what the cost might be to entice commerce here, above the incentives that exist already. (I know that, for example, some enticements include a rejuvenated downtown. I’m referring, instead, more to tax breaks or subsidies, etc. to encourage a specific commercial development.)
These are plans only, so those incentives are not in play. Perhaps they never will be. How much government intervention would still make sense? A smart growth advocate would say that the best plans are a partnership of business and government, a mix of residential and commercial, a sort of third way, so to speak. The partnership might lead to zoning changes, financial incentives, etc.
The market advocate responds that if the development wouldn’t happen privately, it probably shouldn’t happen at all. Ultimately, the government resources to make a project happen would be a misallocation.
We do not know how these proposals will continue to evolve, but the closer they hew to a limited role for government, the less likely Whitewater is to commit itself to an otherwise misdirected result. A private result, however, may not involve a balanced mixture of residential and commercial, but may significantly favor the former over the latter.
We may find that there will be less commercial development than we might have imagined.
If that’s what the private result would be, then I’m convinced that it would be the best one for us. It leaves a question though, to which we have not yet found an answer – how to provide broad opportunity for all parts of the community?
I would not ordinarily think that residential development, or retail, would be the obvious answers to that question.
