You can’t wait for the new Home Depot near South Iowa Street to open or you cuss it as one more “big box” store in an area that doesn’t need any more.

A proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter on the city’s northwest edge is a needed addition or an unwelcome intrusion.

The Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission is dysfunctional or it’s finally become a bit democratic.

When it comes to Tuesday’s Lawrence City Commission primary election, your opinions on such growth-related issues could decide how you vote.

With three of the commission’s five seats open, the April 1 general election is about who controls the planning commission and Lawrence’s growth.

“The composition of the city commission has a lot to do with the composition of the planning commission,” said Karl Brooks, chairman of the Progressive Lawrence Campaign political action committee. “I’d say it would be one of the more important priority items candidates will be asked about.”

Campaign finance reports filed last week — filled with names of contributors from Lawrence’s growth battles — illustrated the divide.

Money talks

Dennis “Boog” Highberger, Mike Rundle and David Schauner received financial backing from Progressive Lawrence Campaign — the PAC wants a stronger government hand in guiding Lawrence’s growth — and organic farming company Pines International. Other contributors were people who have criticized development proposals as violating the city’s comprehensive plan. They included Wally Emerson, Planning Commissioner David Burress and Kansas University professor Kirk McClure.

On the other side, Greg DiVilbiss, Lee Gerhard, Lynn Goodell and Ken McRae picked up support from Realtors and developers such as Duane Schwada, Martin Moore, John McGrew, First Management Inc. and Southwind Capital LLC.

Candidates Zach Bassin, Eddie Lehman and G. Wayne Parks join the Progressive Lawrence Campaign trio in saying that developers have too much control over the city’s growth. August “Gus” Huber IV has not responded to Journal-World questions about his positions.

¢ City commission candidate survey¢ Where to vote¢ City candidate profiles, contribution lists¢ City candidate selector¢ Election stories and voting information

Predictably, the candidates disagree on how much control developers have over the planning commission.

“It’s simply overbalanced toward development,” Rundle said.

“I don’t view the city boards as unbalanced,” McRae said. “You see a project comes forward, it rarely goes forward 10-0, and certainly a variety of opinions are expressed.”

Dysfunctional or democratic?

Actually, 10-0 votes weren’t that uncommon until about two years ago. That’s when Rundle, serving a yearlong term as mayor, appointed Burress and Myles Schachter to the planning commission, and Douglas County Commissioner Bob Johnson appointed John Haase to represent the county.

The three quickly became a vocal minority that often challenged projects they saw as violating Horizon 2020, the city-county long-range planning guide. And they forced more frequent and longer discussions on developer requests for variances from subdivision regulations.

Some saw the new commissioners as rude, agenda-driven and, an oft-used label, “dysfunctional.” Douglas County Commissioner Jere McElhaney started talking about dissolving the board to let the city and county take care of their planning issues separately.

“We don’t put that board in place to cause controversy or a rift,” McElhaney said. “It should be a board that’s going to work together, solve problems together. Difference of opinions are fine, but outlandish difference of opinion probably doesn’t need to be there.”

Others believe the appointments brought a needed bit of democracy to the board.

“Clearly the level of debate that goes on there now makes it harder to get business done and decisions made,” said City Commissioner David Dunfield, who presumably will become mayor in April and thus make the next two planning commission appointments. “But they’re also doing a better job of clarifying the issues and getting all the choices on the table.”

Who wants what?

Despite the division, commission candidates sound similar when talking about the kinds of planning commissioners they would support.

“Those who would recognize the need for growth that wouldn’t hurt any other part of town, whether it’s downtown or elsewhere,” Goodell said in describing his ideal planning commissioner. “We have to protect what we want, but we have to grow.”

“Someone who has a long-term vision for Lawrence,” Highberger said. “Someone who works and plays well with others, somebody who can listen respectfully to people from all sides of the community.”

“I’d like to have somebody who doesn’t have some type of agenda in place,” DiVilbiss said, “but is willing to look at each issue.”

Rundle and Schauner suggest the city should limit developer involvement on the planning commission.

“Certainly some expertise is helpful, but to have so many interested parties on our planning commission doesn’t strike me as good public policy,” Schauner said.

Gerhard is skeptical that developers have such control. But he said commissioners should take a closer look at who benefits and who pays when Lawrence grows.

“They’re not always the same people,” he said.

Dunfield, meanwhile, is staying mum on whom he might appoint this spring.

“Anybody who’s willing to take that on has my admiration,” he said. “What we would all like is for every (planning commissioner) to agree on doing things that each of us individually wants them to do.”