Santa Clara - McDougal Trade (Failed)

New Search

TABLE 40V SANTA CLARA COMMUNITY PARK SURVEY - 2005 Table 40V: Why are you opposed (TOP 2 REASONS)? Development/developedgrowth issue 97401 1 just think that the amount of houses they want to add is too much. It isn't going to be good for schools or the community to add that many places. The boundaries should be left 1 just wouldn't agree to the proposal the way it is asking for so many houses in one small area. I just think that things go too far with development. I think Ridgeline needs to be left for parks and I think it just needs to be left the way it is for a while and slow down this developer. They couldn't possibly accommodate the growth with the way it is right now. I think it needs a few more years planning and rewriting. They have destroyed the urban Eugene setting already with overhousing. Growth is going to happen, however, growth needs to take a break in this case. They need to not build in either place. Do we really need more houses? The Urban Growth Boundaries don't need to be moved anymore right now. I think that they need to stop building and ruining the entire area. Property needs to be left undeveloped and leave it at that. The amount of houses seems far out of proportion. Too many houses being proposed. The schools would be too hard hit. No more houses are needed out there, schools are already bursting. 97402 They would find some way of getting money out of taxpayers. Too much sprawl, too fast of growth, too much pressure on the schools and infrastructures, most important, the destruction of farm land. Too many people around now. I'm too old and in a rest home to know that much about the problems. The area I am thinking of seems to be under water a lot. Eugene is growing too fast as it is. 1 want Tess traffic. I'want the area to improve but not necessarily with more people and development. There is already a lot of houses and traffic. The park would be nice but we don't need any more housing. There are too many houses out here. They can't take care of the parks we have now properly, so why get new ones? The 900 homes. That is at least 1800 more cars, 2700 more people and they need to do something about the traffic now. A park would be great but this area can't support that much of an increase. It would be a housing tract and we don't need it and aren't set up for it We need the parks but not the housing. If the city has a million to buy parks, why do they want more money, because they can't maintain what they have? This area doesn't need more houses with the limited amount of roads available. I think there are enough vacancies that we don't need to build more houses.