Unfortunately I saw the aftermath, and where the car stopped and the direction it was heading, was very clear that the pedestrian wasn't in a crosswalk.

Not trying to blame or talk ill of the dead, but unfortunately you're right here.

Individual property rights are fine and part of this, but this specific development is at the heart of our current debate for overall city development.

Here's the thing, no one wants to live next to a commercial property, period.

If you take into account everyone's "right" to quiet enjoyment on their SF lot. You'll have no commercial property anywhere. Let alone industrial. Why would anyone want a home next to a commercial property?

So inferring your concept it's ONLY those lots that are currently commercial can be commercial, and residential can't ever become commercial. You could say the same thing for every single commercial property south of Sunshine. Everything there was Agricultural or Residential prior to 1940s. Should that not exist as it threatened the farmers "quiet enjoyment"?

I get the points, but it's an undefendable argument because it's entirely based on Nimby'ism. Development is great! .... Just not next to me and my investment.

We is the residents of Springfield.

Thai Peppers and the other 2 adjacent buildings would be great to tear down and build new mixed use on. I totally agree. The reason that hasn't happened is because the owners presumably want more than it's worth, and developers can't make the proforma work.

But your argument is essentially ONLY currently zoned commercial lots can be commercial lots OR we can make Springfield even more carcentric by developing outside of populated areas. So now the farmers out there and all the people who want quiet lives are pissed off. Get how literally someone is going to be pissed off and complain no matter where developers build a building?

Developers look for opportunities. If Sears was for sale, and Simon wanted to sell it at a decent price it would be redeveloped SO quickly.

Lastly the homes were demolished, a private owner has the right to tear down anything they want in Springfield, unless it has special protected status which is voluntary and rare. Even if it is protected locally, then it only stops the owner from demo for 60 days.

So I'm curious, where should development happen? Poor neighborhoods that can't argue as loudly? Outside of the city so we sprawl even further?

What IS okay to tear down, and what's not?

Ultimately Springfield has turned from a city of new development to redevelopment. We don't have green fields like Republic and Nixa. We don't want to spread out further. We want and need to up our density.

Bravo, you explained the situation very well.

No it was UH residents that put pressure on Council to vote no. Council is pro business, they only reason they would vote business down is because it was THAT unpopular with residents affected.

I might not fully agree with all of the points.

But I do wholeheartedly agree that small development helps local. No one out of state or our region is going to come and develop a negligible amount of residential/commercial units. Not worth it. But a local who made money and wants to break into the market would.

We ... need ... more ... mixed ... use.

Everyone complains about Springfield being carcentric. Guess how we fix that. Density. Density plus mixed use walkable neighborhoods that you don't need a car to buy groceries, go eat, or even get to work. Downtown has it, Commercial Street, Pickwick, and Chesterfield (Maybe Farmers Park).

Oh I know, it's so reductive though. No one admits they are, so you have to explain why they are being selfish and ridiculous.

Exactly my sentiments. Everyone gets galvanized after someone comes up with a plan to do something they don't like.

Kind of like when a neighborhood that has woods behind it throws a fit when someone creates a neighborhood there and they bemoan the loss of the trees and woods. I get it, I'd hate it too, but I didn't do anything to secure my rights to it.

The real issue I see is that UH was so against this corner being rezoned as ANYTHING. It could have been rezoned and used as nonprofit housing that would have been used for low income family to stay and visit family at Mercy. But UH threw a fit about that. Now look, some ahole comes and buys all of the cheap property that no one wants because the neighborhood has made it virtually worthless.

I'm sorry I have no sympathy. I liked the houses, but I think the neighborhood shot themselves in the foot and are upset that they did so.

More housing is good yes. Even if it's overpriced because more competition means landlords have to compete more, lowering housing prices.

Want to make landlords lose their shorts? Build a metric fuckton of housing.

This is nonsensical. However Duda and Tolliver are going about it all wrong.

That being said the white home and others were for sale for nearly a decade. If the neighborhood cared so much for them someone would have bought it and lived in it.

They have all the rights in the world to tear down what they own, there's nothing legally stopping them. If I owned a house and it wasn't protected (like most of Springfield) you can't stop me.