Comments

Uncle Jed wrote on May 22, 2009 1:26 AM:

" We don't need no fancy subdivisions round here. I hate those silly site condos by Wasilla lake too. Brings a bad element of people too. Fancy city slickers think they're better than us simple folk. "




typical wrote on May 21, 2009 6:18 PM:

" this was a good change to subdivision rules, more of the friends of mat-su influence on the city council..there are parcels in the city this would work great on, and its not for every development. "




conservative dude wrote on May 21, 2009 11:20 AM:

" I am surprised that my fellow conservatives don't support this concept. It does not change density; same number of units on the same number of acres. It does allow something all conservatives support--choice in the marketplace. If people want to buy these units, and they don't adversely impact neighbors any more than the "traditional" subdivision, then where's the problem? Seems like you guys want to limit people's choices; not conservative at all. What's wrong with retaining more open space? Nobody's going to force you to live there. Lighten up. "




A Great OPTION wrote on May 20, 2009 8:58 PM:

" Thank you Frontiersman for recognizing that this proposal of a conservation subdivision is not only an option (and not mandatory) for developers but also for homebuyers. How we grow and develop our economic base and enhance our quality of life is all about choices. I, for one, want as many options to choose from. Oh, and to the Friends of Mat-Su bashers, give it up already. Either have a discussion with them and get the facts or find another entity to blame. "




TJ Snell wrote on May 20, 2009 3:35 PM:

" I'm not sure that placing large amounts of highly contaminated snow (that was most likely removed from the highway, parking lots or any other grotesque area that is subject to combustable/carcinogenic materials) onto a PUBLIC PARKPLACE would be the best practice. Whomever suggested that should go eat some oiled, yellow, roadsalt-ridden snow. "




To Woodruff WRONG wrote on May 19, 2009 10:48 PM:

" I agree with your assessment of the site condos above the railroad tracks overlooking Wasilla Lake. These were built on a parcel zoned Commercial, and there are no standards in place to prevent such a thing from happening again. I would welcome your help crafting legislation addressing this issue. The editorial does have some inaccuracies and I do want to make it clear that the ordinance on conservation subdivisions does not increase the overall density allowed on a parcel. I would be happy to discuss the matter with you directly. Dianne Woodruff "




To You Dont Get It wrote on May 19, 2009 10:36 PM:

" I appreciate that you got my profession right, however, I'm not sure what that has to do with this land use ordinance, and I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of Friends of Mat-Su, but I do know it has a much more diverse membership than you might imagine and might be something for you to check out. I have no clients contemplating this type of development, but it might have been very helpful for us with the Shadowood issue in 2005. I'd be happy to discuss this with you.
Dianne Woodruff "




Woodruff WRONG wrote on May 19, 2009 5:55 PM:

" This whole thing is a bad idea. I'm getting ready to purchase a home in Wasilla because they don't have the same "common space" socialism that increases density. Wasilla residents should protest this with all their might as its a bad idea. All one has to do is look at the ugly site condos above the railroad tracks that look over Wasilla lake. They're ugly, they're an eyesore and they're what we all will inherit unless we put Woodruff and the rest of her "Friends of MatSu" in their place. Why don't they live in Anchorage? "




You Dont Get It wrote on May 19, 2009 5:48 PM:

" The developers want to construct this high density housing on "Lands that are marginal" read between the lines. Swamp land would be the open areas they boast about so tell little Johnie to put on his hip waders and go play in the comman area park. Woodruff is a bean counter and a FRIEND of MAT-SU, these developers are her clients..GET IT? We Don't WANT THIS IN WASILLA. Nancy Hall claims we have no history well she has not been here long enough to learn what we want. VOTE THEM OUT SOON this is my town not Eagle River "




To Linda... wrote on May 19, 2009 4:45 PM:

" I agree completely with your assessment of Homeowner's Associations. Our now defunct neighborhood association chose to fight another homeowner for over 5 years, and they are still in court trying to fight against his proposed settlement. (The HOA lost)Tyrannical doesn't even begin to describe what has gone on here. Property rights should take priority and the government, no matter what level should stay out of it unless a property owner creates a dump in the eyes of a judge. We would never buy in another HOA. Live free or die! "




Chump Change wrote on May 19, 2009 12:52 PM:

" They call that the "chicken little complex". Yes and "they" are going to take away our guns and , oh my god, next they will want us to pay our own way and quit living off the system. And then, they will tell that I have to work and then, they will find a way to sneak in an ordinance that will require me to clean up my god given right to have as much trash in my yard as I can. And then.....
What should be feared is the sprawl mentality that can permeate a community. "




Linda wrote on May 19, 2009 11:57 AM:

" I lived in a townhome in Nevada, and paid an association fee even though we had no green space, and no amenities. The association board of directors were a tyranical and meddlesome bunch. I will never again live anywhere where I must be beholding to an association.

I am suspicious of, and against, any and all plans to increase density building in the Valley!. They'll start out with green spaces, and eventually find a way to wiggle out of it. I don't trust this idea at all, and I think it is a bad one! "




obstructre wrote on May 19, 2009 11:34 AM:

" Most open space in Alaska is kept in its natural state, more of a protection for the sensitive area then what is common outside, that is, a "park" with grass. In the park situation I suspect the amenity was the draw for those buyers and they had the choice to live there or not.. The difference or criteria for maintenance is the use - passive or active ( natural state or developed parks) and again, people have a choice to embrace those amenities or not. The proposal is to provide the option for those who chose an option. "




Big Lake wrote on May 19, 2009 8:39 AM:

" I lived in subdivision like this in Florida. What you must unserstand is you the home owner pay for the common space. It is called Association Dues. How else will the common area be kept? Mowing in the summer and snow removal in the winter. Property Insurance for the common area will be costly. "