Archive for Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Lawrence may annex land near Lecompton

February 12, 2008

Advertisement

There's a new twist in efforts to create a business park near the Lecompton interchange on the Kansas Turnpike.

The development group is now seeking to have the approximately 155-acre tract northeast of the interchange annexed into the Lawrence city limits.

City commissioners at their meeting tonight will consider taking the first step in that annexation process. The development group - led by Lawrence businessman Duane Schwada - is asking commissioners to refer the annexation request to planning commissioners for a recommendation.

The Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission in December recommended approval of a rezoning request that would allow the property to develop as a county business park. But that zoning must be approved by county commissioners before it becomes final.

The County Commission in 2004 rejected a similar plan after it was opposed by several neighbors. The plan, however, never has been considered by the City Commission.

The property - on the northwest corner of East 900 Road and North 1800 Road - is not adjacent to any part of the city limits. City Manager David Corliss said the city would have to study the feasibility of extending water and sewer to the site, if the City Commission decides to start the annexation process. Corliss also said it is possible that the project could be annexed into the city without using city water or sewer services.

Commissioners meet at 6:35 p.m. tonight at City Hall, Sixth and Massachusetts streets.

Comments

hipper_than_hip 7 years, 2 months ago

Save your breath casul; Duane cares nothing about what other people think; he only cares about himself and his money.

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 2 months ago

ok all bickering aside and because I really have no clue why does this trac of land need to become part of lawrence to be a business park? why?

somebodynew 7 years, 2 months ago

Why momma ???? So that Duane can get richer. That appears to be the only reason to me anyway.

mellowdude 7 years, 2 months ago

Seems the city has enough problems it cannot resolve without adding more. This is clearly another opportunity to line the pockets of the few. There is no other possible justification for this. Fix the downtown problems that have taken away Lawrence's greatest asset, make use of the N 2nd "gateway to the city", then, and only then, consider annexing additional opportunities for developers.

hipper_than_hip 7 years, 2 months ago

Here's the reason Momma: the proposed industrial park in is an area without utility infrastructure. The only way to get water and sewer to his project is to have the city provide it.

Many people were worried about the cost to the city to upgrade the existing utilities for development around the airport; what's the cost to provide brand-new utilities to this project which is located so far outside the city?

gr 7 years, 2 months ago

How about, Lawrence-west. A separate city. Separate utilities.
Governed by the same commission.

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 2 months ago

no really I am serious why do the need to annex he land for a bus. park is there some law or something that says the land must be in a city limit?

gr 7 years, 2 months ago

"This is clearly another opportunity to line the pockets of the few."

And one would think 458casul is one of those few.

I suppose this Duane stands to profit, but I would suppose the main reason the city wants to annex the land is to make money off the businesses. Without providing them services!

No water, no sewer, let Lecompton police it. Free money for the taking. Don't believe me? Look around at other instances. I think it was Ottawa or somewhere south which even said how much money they would take in by annexing people who didn't want to be annexed. If 9 people own the land, 5 vote for, 4 vote against, tough cookies for them. If one person or group owns the land, it's a done deal.

Whatever happened about restricting growth. This sounds like rampant sprawl to me. Can't you just hear it in a few years concerning land between here and there: 'this land is bordered by city property so it just makes sense to annex it, too.'

Michael Capra 7 years, 2 months ago

Duane your a man with a vision its to bad that a few will come out on this forum and talk trash, copy, and paste.Just remember Duane that is all they do in life,good luck

somebodynew 7 years, 2 months ago

Momma - sorry, I misunderstood your question. No, the property does NOT have to be in the city to be a business park, but he has tried this a couple of years ago and the county commission voted him down, due to the neighbors concerns. My guess is if this get annexed then all he has to do is deal with the CITY commission.

BigPrune 7 years, 2 months ago

Like a leap frog. Where's Waldo, I mean Merrill?

somebodynew 7 years, 2 months ago

No 45j8, not all of us have nothing better to do, but from someone who lives in the area, I will still stand and fight this, both here and at the meetings. And trust me I have many more things to be spending my time on, but this is important to me.

I thought the city had a rule against "island" annexations ???? Why are they even considering this ?? Maybe I have to re-consider some of the conspiracy theorists on this board and agree that the city is way to cozy with the developers.

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 2 months ago

thanks for the answers people, so no good reason to annes and more cost to the people of lawrence. Do we really need an ind. park out there or anywhere right now? never mind on that question I can see it would cause a big debate on here.

LogicMan 7 years, 2 months ago

By looking at the floodplains, it is obvious that Lawrence can logically and economically only grow to the west (and the not south across the wide Wakarusa floodplain).

As such, in many years hence, Lecompton will be surrounded by Lawrence, and eventually incorporated into it as a neighborhood of historic significance.

As the Borg once said, "Resistance is futile -- you will be assimilated."

crackers 7 years, 2 months ago

Duane is a man with a vision. He wants to please himself, his lawyers and his bank. NOBODY else matters, we are all just in his way.

rumor_man 7 years, 2 months ago

Be careful how you talk about Mr. Schwada.

He's probably writing every comment down for future reference the same way he records every city meeting for his records.

crackers 7 years, 2 months ago

rumor man, Jane is writing every comment down.

hipper_than_hip 7 years, 2 months ago

The site is within 3 miles of Lecompton, so the city of Lecompton has input at the Lawrence city commission level, and at the Douglas county commission level.

coolmarv 7 years, 2 months ago

It is 5.5 miles from Lecompton's southern city limits. and 4 miles from 6th and Wak in Lawrence. That is not Lawrencese closest point though.

I think at one time (recently) Lecompton was trying to extend their buffer zone. I think that is what it is called. The area around a city's limits to help protect itself.

Michael Capra 7 years, 2 months ago

see what I mean 10 posters out of a 100000 people get a life

Richard Heckler 7 years, 2 months ago

Where is the money? Taxpayers should pack city hall tonight!!!

*Lawrence cannot afford to annex cuz it will not not maintain existing infrastructure.... why take on more?

*How much will annexation cost the taxpayers?

*Why should non investor taxpayers be forced to pay anything on this venture?

UDS 497, City Commission and County Commission want to raise taxes...hmmmmmm

How do the City Commissioners intend to pay for: Airport Project 31st Street Expansion *Farmland - There is ton of land with infrastructure

With Annexation comes:

*Increases in the Cost of Community Services = Increase in Cost of Living = Increase in taxes and fees.

*New neighborhoods for the real estate/development industry create a demand for community services such as:

  • Additonal city staffing and equipment
  • New sewage treatment plant
  • water and sewer lines
  • streets and repairs houses public schools
  • fire stations
  • law enforcement manpower *sidewalks
  • snow removal
  • bike trails and cross walks
  • Traffic signals
  • Traffic calming
  • Strip Malls
  • Expensive Flood Control

*In general increases the cost of community services to all taxpayers whether existing taxpayers support growth that does not pay for itself or not. Let's bring on Impact Fees to cover the cost of all the above.

Michael Capra 7 years, 2 months ago

No Merrill I will not count you till you get a life

Richard Heckler 7 years, 2 months ago

Each time commissioners say yes it is likely to taking more tax dollars from you. Some of them and developers laugh all of the way to the bank. Isn't time for developers to completely bankroll their own profit making ventures?

Increases in the Cost of Community Services = Increase in Cost of Living = Increase in taxes and fees.

If all are tired of raising taxes how in the world can one support the developers desire to do whatever they damn well please. And when they over build, which creates economic displacement , that which is counterproductive to economic growth. So many taxpayers shout screw me again please anytime you wish. Build build build and take my tax dollars to your bank account. Developers don't necessarily do it themselves:their hired city/county/planning commissioners merely pave the way each time they say yes. It will probably happen again tonight unless taxpayers start showing up and raising hell.

  Developers create a host of tax dollar projects for US tax payers to pay for and maintain such as:

  *New neighborhoods which create a demand for community services such as:

  * Additonal city staffing and equipment
  * New sewage treatment plant
  * water and sewer lines
  * streets and repairs
  *houses
  *public schools
  * fire stations
  * law enforcement manpower
  *sidewalks
  * snow removal
  * bike trails and cross walks
  * Traffic signals
  * Traffic calming
  * Strip Malls
  * Expensive Flood Control

  *In general increases the cost of community services to all taxpayers whether existing taxpayers support growth that does not pay for itself or not. Let's bring on Impact Fees to cover the cost of all the above.

  Each time commissioners say yes it is likely to taking more tax dollars from you. Some of them and developers laugh all of the way to the bank.

BigPrune 7 years, 2 months ago

Why doesn't the City of Lawrence do away with zoning completely? Our City would be much better off.

BigPrune 7 years, 2 months ago

Get rid of zoning all together. Other communities have done it and they are better off - the cost of living is much lower than controlled development, they are prosperous and they have job creation more than not. Don't you think that Lawrence would save a bundle of OUR dollars if we didn't have a planning department jacking around with everything? I sincerely believe that the citizens of Lawrence would be much happier, even the habitual bullies who complain about anything and everything.

repaste 7 years, 2 months ago

Hey, I think it is simple, leap-frogging is not often desirable for the City, cost-benifit ratio is wrong. People who want it are between the site and city. What about land on the city borders? Why are large sections of it empty if we have such great need?

repaste 7 years, 2 months ago

It is outside transport 2030, that had two commish help write just awhile back. They should not allow on that alone

BigPrune 7 years, 2 months ago

I've read all the greatness. Planning this is great and planning that is great and bringing in new planning groups is great because they have great new planning ideas that are great, but did the City ever think about doing away with zoning laws? Lawrence's problems are not caused by the national economy b.s. excuse. Lawrence's lameness is local.

Cities without zoning laws have a lower cost of living and affordable housing.

City planning often interferes with free market solutions and Lawrence is one of the most regulated cities in the nation, and that is not an exaggeration.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.