Note: The Lawrence Times runs opinion columns and letters to the Times written by community members with varying perspectives on local issues. These pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Times staff.
Would you like to send a letter to the Times? Great! Here’s how to do it.
Developers have submitted a second request to upzone a parcel commonly referred to as Third and Michigan.
This second rezoning request exhibits essentially identical deficiencies to those presented in the first (October 2024) conceptual plan — briefly, fundamentally inadequate transition from low density to high density residential land use, and incompatibility with both the “character” and existing physical infrastructure of the surrounding neighborhood.
If the application is true to any mandate interpretable in the comprehensive plan, it is the one that calls for increased density — housing units per acre through infill redevelopment in established neighborhoods. We understand that your charge as a planning commission does not extend to weighing the social and economic implications of a development application — in this case, contingent on upzoning. Hopefully without insulting you, we, nonetheless, want to make a couple points about the likely implications of approving the applicants’ request.
As a gross generalization, in the post-WWII era, the burdens imposed by redevelopment have fallen heavily on modest neighborhoods — largely minority neighborhoods and/or “blue-collar” ones. We view the present application as just another small example (albeit one close to home) of the potential burden of inappropriate scale redevelopment on modest neighborhoods. Briefly, if the parcel is developed to R4 density, the medium time scale (say 3 to 10 years) transition path for the neighborhood will most likely involve significant conversion of owner-occupied single-family housing units to rental units. It is the familiar capital/equity story now playing out across the country.
We do not see this application strictly as an owner versus renter argument (one is good, the other is bad). The better way to view it is through the question: What sort of increased density infill development would provide the best value for all parties — the immediate neighborhood, the larger community, and the development interests (private and public)? To get to best value, we believe it is critical that all parties recognize the importance of maintaining existing attainable housing stock — the sort of two- to three-bedroom slab-on-grade ranchers proximate to the development parcel. As these units turn over demographically, they provide the most realistic possibilities for homeownership for young and/or first-time buyers.
In this spirit, we ask that you deny the rezoning request. Please encourage the development interests — public and private — to engage the neighborhood so that the results reflect sensible density that adds value for all concerned.
We appreciate the time commitment that you make.
— Phil and Peggi Englehart, Lawrence
If this local platform matters to you, please help us keep doing this work.
Don’t miss a beat … Click here to sign up for our email newsletters
Click here to learn more about our newsletters first
More Community Voices:
Letter to the Times: Planning Commission should deny 3rd and Michigan upzoning request
Tom Harper/Lawrence Times
Housing advocates and organizers: Lawrence should say no to occupancy restrictions (Column)
“We see daily how families of all kinds — blood-related or chosen — pool groceries, bills and child care to keep one another safe. Occupancy caps effectively criminalize mutual aid, making it harder for people to meet basic needs,” four local housing advocates write in this column.
Letter to the Times: Occupancy limits are unfair to nontraditional families
“Why should the rest of us have to live with increased housing costs because adults who chose not only to live in a college town, but next to the campus itself, don’t want an increase of students living in the neighborhood?” Chris Flowers writes in this letter to the Times.
