|Re: Eugene Cohousing||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Gmail Lynn (ld61069gmail.com)|
|Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 23:59:57 -0700 (PDT)|
Hi, Thanks for continuing to watch the OMC project! You are correct in describing the main opposition. It is unfortunate how the process has played out, however Katie is correct in pointing out that shrinking the project would've priced out many members. (We even took the plans to a local architect asking what we could do to build it with fewer units, without pricing out members, and were told the same thing again.) That, and consistent feedback from other coho's regarding size for health and strength of community being that 24-32, we stuck with 28. Hindsight is 20-20. Would that increased cost be more or less than the cost incurred by legal fees for the appeal process? Who knows. Of course everyone would prefer to have avoided the conflict! But with two failed attempts at dialogue, and different suggestions as to what would be acceptable, we were advised to get it built and then work on solutions to concerns upon move in. Right or wrong, that's where it's at. We have many supportive neighbors, looking forward to what OMC will bring to the neighborhood. Each of us works in various capacities around building & supporting community. We have more in common than we do different with the neighbors who oppose the size. And it's important to note that what's held things up in the appeal process has mostly been clerical errors on the part of the City regarding info mailings- nothing to do with the plans of the project. If anyone has questions about OMC, I encourage you to visit the website and give us a call at the number there. And I hope, Tricia, that you've found a community that you love! Peace- Lynn Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 31, 2018, at 9:54 AM, T G <triciamill9 [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > I have been following this project for quite some time in the news, and it > appears that the main concern from the neighbors is that the only access to > the development is an extremely narrow, undersized, and unimproved dead end > road. The neighbors didn't feel the City should be approving a project that > will bring the traffic of 28 additional homes without the road meeting > current safety standards, such as sidewalks and a sufficient road width. > > It looks like the neighbors were supportive of the development when it was > originally proposed but then it grew in size and that concerned them. > > It is unfortunate that the cohousing group and the neighbors could not have > compromised on the number of homes. There are several successful smaller > cohousing developments, so it doesn't seem to make sense to me that a > compromise would not have been better than continuous appeals (very > expensive and time consuming, not to mention the loss of members!!). > > I started looking elsewhere after watching this go on for 5 years in the > news but have been curious to see how it ended up playing out. > _________________________________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > http://l.cohousing.org/info > > >
- Re: Eugene Cohousing T G, July 31 2018
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.