December 16, 2004

EDITORIAL

More on growth and planning

Wal-Mart and other big-box stores may never set up shop around Yellow Springs, but that does not mean that sprawl, or uncontrolled growth, cannot happen here. Even a few service-oriented businesses built on the border of the current village limits will likely harm downtown, and have negative consequences for the economy and our community — which is just the opposite outcome those who support growth hope to achieve.

Plant a convenience store, gas station and restaurant, and mix with a few dozen, or more, overpriced McMansions, and the western edge of Yellow Springs could look and feel like a new village, a shinier, but separate, “Yellow Springs West.”

That’s why efforts to engage in a community dialogue about growth, green space preservation and the financial pressures on the Village government are so crucial. Village Council, which agreed earlier this month to organize this debate, must show that its support for growth has been well thought out, and that the Village is taking a moderate approach to development.

Council members may have a vision to promote economic and housing development, but they must still work with the community to ensure that a majority support their goals. Take a comment from Council member Denise Swinger, who, in an article last week on the “Balancing the Scales” image project, described as being difficult the opposition to annexing the Fogg property. Ms. Swinger may have been honest, but her comment can also lead to skepticism about Council’s commitment for a forthcoming and open community dialogue.

As we alluded to in last week’s editorial, the community is struggling with two different values, or needs: the longstanding desire to preserve green space, and the realistic predictions that Yellow Springs needs to do something to improve the economy and reverse population loss. So far, how much and what kind of growth Yellow Springers are willing to support is up in the air.

It is possible to support both growth and green space preservation. Just look at Tecumseh Land Trust. The organization that led the effort to preserve Whitehall Farm when it went up for auction in 1999, TLT has said that it is not against all development. And as Krista Magaw, the executive director of the land trust, writes in a letter this week, TLT is ready to participate in the Council-led planning exercise. But the land trust has also lobbied, so far to no avail, for Council to commit to replenishing the Village green space fund, which Council agreed to drain earlier this year to pay for a retention basin — which will aid development plans on the western end of town.

Not all development is bad. Developing the Fogg property with residential housing might turn out to be a good thing for Yellow Springs. More housing is needed in town, and the most intriguing part of the conceptual plans for the Fogg property may be the residences for people 55 and older.

Plus, the commerce park, called the Center for Business and Education and slated for construction at East Enon and Dayton-Yellow Springs Roads, deserves support from the community. The park will provide room for businesses to expand in Yellow Springs, creating more jobs and taxes for the Village, Miami Township and the school district. Community Resources, the nonprofit organization building the commerce park, has said that the facility will not contain retail businesses.

What won’t work on Yellow Springs’ western border is a third commercial district anchored, not by offices and educational facilities, but by retail stores and restaurants. The Village has tools, including control of public utilities and financial incentives, to influence the type of growth that is likely to occur around town. But supporting growth, just for the sake of growing, is not the answer.

—Robert Mihalek