web analytics

More fun with zoning

This article on the Star is yet another example of our misplaced priorities with regards to zoning. Let’s go down a quick list of why this is ridiculous to fight:

  • Gives Eastside residents a much-needed place to work.
  • Helps the city’s tax base.
  • A green business that can be called on as a future asset.
  • The abandoned factories and warehouses in the area dwarf the size and scope of Cornett’s planned expansion.
  • They are good neighbors. Google Street View actually has evidence of this. Notice the change in the building: Before, and After.

The good news is that Cornett has desire and perhaps financial incentive to stay if possible. We must make it possible for his business to stay in Indianapolis.

Social Media

9 Responses to “ “More fun with zoning”

  1. Graeme says:

    I don't foresee that area rebounding back to a residential streetscape. Other than the roofing company there are construction companies, a lumber yard, a door/window company, and some other small businesses.

    It's not residential in any way other than the zoning code. And the foundry is basically across the street.

    I think it is hard for home-owners in the area to accept that their neighborhood is changing, but a profitable business is a much better neighbor than an abandoned home.

  2. cdc guy says:

    I don't live as close as Graeme does, but I'm from the "jobs = economic development" school, and I'd rather keep Cornett in the neighborhood than some of the other crap that's there.

  3. Curt says:

    If that scrap yard out by 70 somehow gets cleared, and this doesn't someone needs their necks rung. I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen

  4. Anonymous says:

    This just confirms the zoning laws in Indianapolis are just enforced by a bunch of tidy whities from the suburbs within the corrupt environs of the city county building. These people should just spend a whole week driving around the whole city to see the actual wasteland they help create on a daily basis. I think Indy's logo should be "THE LAND OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES…AND VACANT PROPERTIES" Seriously, when will there be residential development in that exact location? Common sense just doesn't apply when it comes to 'planning for the burbs.'

  5. Curt says:

    Well, whether or not you agree with suburbs (people have to live somewhere) I agree with what you said about getting in a car and driving out there. A little time spent doing some brick beating will take you far in looking at this situation

  6. cdc guy says:

    In fairness to the planners: government bureaucracies must be run by a consistent rulebook, to avoid bending the rules and showing favoritism.

    Unfortunately, consistent application of rulebooks often results in decisions such as the one at hand that appear to lack common sense.

    On the other hand, one thing none of us knows is how good a neighbor Cornett is to the adjacent residences. There may be more to the story.

  7. Kevin says:

    That's a good point CDC.

  8. Andrew "Boxy" Troemner says:

    CDC — I think there's a difference between having consistent rules and being unbending in their execution. Any rule should be a guidepost for good judgment, but in this case the whole application for a variance process should have kicked the zoning board into the mindset of re-evaluating what exactly their goal in that neighborhood was.

    Unfortunately, there are bureaucrats who justify decisions entirely based on what's in the current draft. The logic goes that if there was a reason important enough justifying it in the first place, it's good enough to know that that's the stance and the reason isn't particularly important.

  9. Freelunch says:

    Did it occur to any of you that the Star reporter and, in this case, the property owner, have no idea what they are talking about? The real story is much less sensational.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>