Santa Clara - McDougal Trade (Failed)

New Search

' 4 TABLE 40V Developer /city did not input first to citizens to work details out Opposed to developers doing land deals with city. Don't trust city officials or developers. Traffic, population problem. I think the park issue is a carrot top for the building developers and the City just wants to annex the area. Against a housing development, too close to Rodeo grounds. Traffic structure could no way support upport more homes. Developers will make too much gain from proposal. Probably higher taxes and more traffic congestion. Enough growth already. Aubrey Park is not used enough as it is. 1 don't believe in the project because developers are involved and we need to put money somewhere else, keeping programs open to the people who are in need. No more houses please, no more traffic, please spend the money on people who need help like mentally ill and poor people. I just want the park only; prefer very small amount of building of houses due to traffic and public transit problems. I would like the community to have a greater involvement in the proposal, traffic issues, and development values. Possible problem of annexing and raising taxes, and maybe not adding so many homes because of privacy and traffic problems. No more traffic, or commercial buildings; concerned about condemnation of property and more housing. I am for the community park, not more housing; we do not need more homes, I like the country living. is I do not want the housing development I do not want the Growth boundary expanded. I do not trust the McDougal Family. I don't want a developer to make money off of a land deal. South Eugene already has plenty of parks. I don' want to be part of Eugene. A park only, no houses; it's not a ealin ...no urban Pa IY ' pp g sprawl. A park is good for the people already living here; new housing would make it too crowded. We don't need more housing, there is enough; just need more parks. The more people and kids, no school funding and road upkeep...that's where the money should go, the schools aren't sufficient for 900 homes. Increased traffic congestion, increased housing. No more housing in that area, only the park. 97405 Because it is financial greed from the developers and it hurts the farmers. Expanding the urban growth boundary into agricultural land is a detriment to the state. I think it is obfuscation- it is a red herring, if you need a park get a park. This offer from the developer is for his advantage and it is not a good proposal. When developers want to develop they should have to give land for park, schools and fire dept. infrastructure as part of the deal because they are going to make a lot of money on the land. I don't think developers pay their fair share of infrastructure costs with schools and so forth. They make money at the expense of tax payers. There needs to be better community involvement in decisions.