tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10704477.post115601938952734430..comments2023-09-16T12:00:05.309-04:00Comments on Feed Me/Drink Me: Holladay Blames Wrong Person for Whole Foodsbraingirlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04159313924554241811noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10704477.post-1156477747778136832006-08-24T23:49:00.000-04:002006-08-24T23:49:00.000-04:00I would disagree with developement on that corner ...I would disagree with developement on that corner solely on the increase in traffic. 86th and Keystone isn't fun during rush hour, many weekends, and I'm sure at other periods of time there as well. I'm up there at odd times because my gym is there so I see traffic at different periods of the day/week.<BR/><BR/>I would love to see Whole Foods come to town. How about the redevelope the Eastgate Mall. Oh wait the demographics there wouldn't support it and the Northside/Camel/Fishers people wouldn't dare drive that far south.Brian D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07307868085286378435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10704477.post-1156338296831277982006-08-23T09:04:00.000-04:002006-08-23T09:04:00.000-04:00Thanks for the comments. I don't disagree with th...Thanks for the comments. I don't disagree with the comp plan, nor do I disagree that zoning areas are there for a reason. I think we actually see eye-to-eye on most of the land use issues. However, the point I may not have effectively made is that while the MDC has certainly been driving these changes, I'm not sure blaming one person -- and one person alone -- for a lack of WF is accurate. The city-county council approved it. Kite proposed it. And Holladay's contention that WF might skip Indy because of a "community-friendly" focus is also off the mark. My point was only that there are many folks to blame here if WF takes a pass on Indy -- and ultimately, it may have nothing to do with any o them. It's strictly a business and demographic issue. <BR/><BR/>That said, it's great to have so many knowledgable folks sharing their perspectives here in Indianapolis -- make sure you keep Feed Me/Drink Me on your list!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10704477.post-1156305872583659102006-08-23T00:04:00.000-04:002006-08-23T00:04:00.000-04:00Man, would you Nora NIMBYs give it up? The neighb...Man, would you Nora NIMBYs give it up? The neighborhood next to the site isn't even that nice anyways...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10704477.post-1156238059741392002006-08-22T05:14:00.000-04:002006-08-22T05:14:00.000-04:00Sorry you had to endure the vulgar comment, Braing...Sorry you had to endure the vulgar comment, Braingirl. It's my first read of your blog, and as a newcomer to blogs, I'm intrigued.<BR/><BR/>But here's why you're dead wrong on this case.<BR/><BR/>There are statutory requirements for rezonings to be granted. One of those requirements is a hardship on the part of the property owner. No such hardship was proven.<BR/><BR/>And, the Comp Plan, devised by township committees across the county, had just been re-approved for Washington Township five months earlier. It can be altered, and often is, with thoughtful interaction between petitioners and neighbors. <BR/><BR/>The Comp Plan calls this area critical. Remonstrators were working with Kite for over a year to try to fit condos into the site, and they had reduced the debate to a discussion about density of homes. Then, Kite introduced the Whole Foods plan. It was dead on arrival. And rightfully so.<BR/><BR/>You didn't attend the MDC hearing, I'm guessing. In addition to ignoring the Comp Plan, Ms. Conley was indignant toward remonstrators, and showed complete lack of knowledge regarding procedure and the Comp Plan. Regretably, it wasn't the first time.<BR/><BR/>The MDC adopted the revised Comp Plan only months before this hearing. Remonstrators would've accepted more-dense homesites with some commitments and covenants. The Whole Foods site plan showed a complete disregard for the Comp Plan. The MDC endorsed Ms. Conley's decision. When the decision was appealed to the full Council, remonstrators lost, I believe, by one vote.<BR/><BR/>To make matters more insulting, Ms. Conley's Councilman husband voted on the measure, and reportedly lobbied his colleagues in caucus to support his wife's decision.<BR/><BR/>That is what has riled neighbors and members of McANA county-wide. The sheer arrogance of the Conleys and their ilk.<BR/><BR/>The Comp Plan is a valued tool, and has been in use in this county for a long time. The volunteer committees who review it spend countless hours coming to terms with multiple and competing interests. If it is going to be altered, it should be with thoughtful and complete, coherent consideration.<BR/><BR/>Which was completely absent in the Whole Foods decision.<BR/><BR/>WF has been looking a multiple sites all over the northside for over 18 months. Kite could not produce evidence that it has a signed lease with WF. This was speculative development, and Kite won the first round. Whether he'll prevail in court remains to be seen.<BR/><BR/>But it's a crying shame that remonstrators had to resort to litigation in this bureaucratic nightmare. They have limited financial resources, unlike the developer.<BR/><BR/>And shame on you, RiShawn, for reducing this argument to a simplistic rehash of northside zoning issues over which you obviously have little or no institutional knowledge. This neighborhood is a well-preserved buffer between commercial clusters, and, left to its own devices, is perfectly capable of remaining so.<BR/><BR/>Braingirl and RiShawn, pick up a Comp Plan, read it, study it, get to know the process by which it was developed.<BR/><BR/>And then we'll see if you're so eager to pass this kind of judgment so quickly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10704477.post-1156222652199995502006-08-22T00:57:00.000-04:002006-08-22T00:57:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com