Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those are all arguements for why they couldn't develop the land without changing rules, but they don't really address the concerns as you stated in your previous post.
Yes, I was specifically countering where you said you think people's issue is NIMBY. I was simply saying why that particular tract is not appropriate.
Quote:
The roads up here are still congested, and are an absolute nightmare during the hours before school starts and after it gets out. In fact, when I travel though MP I hit the most traffic right around Wando until just before Town Center, where it lightens up until right around 526. The stretch around Town Center is always the lightest that I experience.
Building in North MP would still eliminate green space and put pressure on small businesses, so why exactly IS it better to develop up here? Will the stores be more esthetically pleasing north of highway 41?
Understand I'm not saying that you personally are a "not in my backyarder" but you have to agree that the objections that most people have to this development still hold true even if the space is developed elsewhere in town.
I also live up here in North MP. Understand about the traffic and it is getting worse and worse up our way. I personally am opposed to big box stores for the reasons I stated but the argument presented to council differed from my own personal issues. My personal opinion does differ from the people that did not these stores built on this tract. I guess I did not make that clear. The biggest thing for me is my desire to keep small businesses thriving in Mt Pleasant. I am one of those people that shops and supports small business. It's kind of one of my big things. I guess you could call it a not in my backyard thing but it's just a choice I made some time ago. Especially since my own husband's livelihood is from a small business.
Anybody that moved to Mount Pleasant and could not see that Rte 17 was and would be a commercial strip, should have their head examined.
Many in Mount Pleasant have the drawbridge mentality.
The hordes are invading, I am in the castle. Pull up the drawbridge.
What about those outside the drawbridge?
I am in the castle...screw them...pull up the drawbridge.
Does NIMBY mean anything?
NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard
Do you remember Mt Pleasant 15 years ago? Totally different place. Amazing with the amount of development that has occurred. Eh, I just have a couple of years until my daughter is out of high school and then I'm out to Wadmalaw or point south.
I totally agree -- more traffic always north of 41 on 17 around school times. But that is gonna happen anywhere. We had the same issue in the Atlanta area. The roads backed up at school time. You get 3,000 kids trying to leave school at the same time - there is gonna be congestion. It still never takes me more than 20 minutes to get home...that's not bad.
The developer would have agreed to the setbacks, landscaping, architectural details as part of the approval of the development plan. So yes, the Town of Mount Pleasant has been very proactive with their newer developments making sure they do not dominate the landscape. Those details are not included in the Town of Mount Pleasant's comprehensive plan but the zoning would be.
And yes -- municipalities have comprehensive plans but these plans can change over time, lifestyle changes, etc. I would suspect that if a developer wanted to develop that specific tract of land for residential use, there would be a fair number of objections. It seems sometimes, no matter what the development plan, the existing residents object.
And the change in is not just for this tract of land -- it is for all of the Town of Mount Pleasant. I suspect council realized how the total ban on box stores was not a reasonable ban for the entire municipality. They should examine each development proposal on a case by case basis.
And the change in is not just for this tract of land -- it is for all of the Town of Mount Pleasant. I suspect council realized how the total ban on box stores was not a reasonable ban for the entire municipality. They should examine each development proposal on a case by case basis.
It wasn't a total ban on box stores though, it was just the 50 acre rule. That specific rule was in the way of this one development since that tract was 40 acres. I do worry about the law of unintended consequences. These short term decisions end up being a boondoggle down the road.
It wasn't a total ban on box stores though, it was just the 50 acre rule. That specific rule was in the way of this one development since that tract was 40 acres. I do worry about the law of unintended consequences. These short term decisions end up being a boondoggle down the road.
Except that the short term decision back when they enacted the 50-acre rule is what brought on the whole situation. Short-sightedness back then gave people this false sense of NIMBY. 'With the 50-acre rule I'll never have to worry about a large development.' Well .. when cities increase in population and size they don't make roads, parking and other developments SMALLER.
If they had seen the growth Mt. Pleasant would experience and thought about it just a little there would have been a LOT more foresightedness and planning for things like increased traffic etc etc as opposed to the band-aid approach where, for instance, instead of widening a major arterial road like Hwy 17 they thought a couple of frontage roads would do the trick. Now all the town can do is make fun of the snarl that is the ALL BUT TOO LITTLE TOO LATE widening of Hwy 17.
NIMBY runs way too rampant in Mt. Pleasant. On practically every project I've worked on there, residents think the plot of land next to their house is a 'protected' area and that there's no way anyone can build anything on the property adjacent to theirs.
I've had everything from, 'I'm calling the police,' (which resulted in the officer laughing at the man and telling him in all actuality it was HE who was trespassing) to people threatening to sick their dogs on me or call lawyers etc etc etc.
Not because I'm rude or encroaching or trespassing ... because they THOUGHT the piece of property next to theirs would not be able to be developed.
My favorite line (and one I hear too often in Mt. Pleasant) is, 'If I'd known they were going to build <-insertDevelopment-> I never would have moved here.'
Maybe people SHOULDN'T move to Mt. Pleasant. Because it IS going to grow and these developments WILL be built.
I've been indirectly involved with land development for the last 30 years. Folks like to object and often assume things they shouldn't, including the fact they have the right to dictate what goes in their backyard.
I've never heard of any municipality where residents didn't complain about traffic and development. That draw bridge mentality for sure!!!!!
This 17 revamp is messy but will be worth it. There still will be traffic -- it is unavoidable. Hungry Neck right now is well underutilized and dumping the 526 traffic heading to Town Center/IOP onto Hungry Neck will help. You still will have back ups on Coleman Blvd, on Tuesday afternoons when the market is on. You still will have back ups twice a day as kids try to get to and from Wando and folks try to get to and from work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
