Draft Growth Scenarios Comment Board

The City of Lincoln reserves the right to refuse to publish and to edit comments for clarity and brevity.

On January 10, 2011, Travis Davis wrote:

In response to L.H. Wikoff's comment on October 21, 2010: This is a well thought out position. What can we observe about and learn from the past, where and what state are we in currently, and where is the future heading? In the past our growth model did fine, but we were not privy to the information at hand today. To continue with mindless repetitive physical growth of population, land space, and dwindling and forever cost growing energy sources such as petroleum, would be an ultimate farce. Personally, I don't have a perfect and simple solution to pitch right now... but I think the topic deserves serious deliberation. Deliberation that doesn't count out intelligent ideas (such as what Mr. Wikoff had to say) just because they don't fit the mold of recent history. I hope the decision making bodies can be honest with themselves and come up with enlightened implementations for Lincoln, our home, and a wonderful place.

On December 29, 2010, Cheston Coffin wrote:

It would seem to me that if the cities growth plan included a provision to make it difficult to extend the city limits it would force redevelopment of dilapidated properties thus upping the tax intake for the city and county on property that already has an infrastructure. In the same motion we could avoid the extra expense of developing new infrastructure. There by we only spend money on current infrastructure updates instead of currant updates and new infrastructure which just adds to the maintenance load for our city, county, and local utilities. This sort of redevelopment plan has been used in England to help keep a city from sprawling out making sure land within the city limits is being utilized to maximum capacity and efficiency.

On December 13, 2010, the Mayor's Environmental Task Force wrote:

Letter from the Mayor's Environmental Task Force

On December 3, 2010, Stuart Long wrote:

Anyone who expects economic growth in the post-peak oil era does not understand the historic predicament. The future will be different from the past two centuries. The modern world was built on cheap energy. As other fossil fuels (natural gas, coal) also reach their peaks, our economic slope will be downward. Life will become much harder for everyone, even the rich. Commerce will focus on staples rather than luxuries. Fresh fruits and vegetables will not be shipped from other continents. Buildings will be inhabited by more people as a matter of necessity. People will be cold in the winter and hot in the summer. New questions such as using deadly force to protect gardens will be debated. Picture Lincoln when gasoline becomes too expensive for ordinary people and then is rationed only to "necessary" travel. Restoring the old streetcar lines will be highest priority. In the coming age of consolidation, the city may de-annex its most distant suburbs, which will either morph into independent villages or become unpoliced slums. In my opinion, Lincolnites won't have such happy growth choices as A, B and C.

On November 17, 2010, Don Raskey wrote:

I attended the November 3, 2010 LPlan 2040 open house at Eiseley Library. I found your visual presentation greatly skewed in favor of the Compact Growth option. Is it your strategy to influence Lancaster County taxpayer's in favor of this option? asked one of the presenters after the presentation if he has ever heard of Agenda 21. His response to me was, "No, but I will definitely do a Google search and check into this." How naïve do you think we are? Your planning commission, city council, administrators, and staff know full well what Agenda 21 is all about. And your Compact Growth option is coming directly from Agenda 21 and ICLEI - International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI): Local Governments for Sustainability. I find it very dishonest and deceitful of your staff to try and hide your real agenda. If you are really on board with "compact growth", "sustainable development", etc., why don't you just come clean with us and admit it? After all it is such a grand idea that everyone will support, right? Wrong, and you know it. That is why you have to try and dress up/disguise your real purpose of supporting your Compact Growth option. And what is your real agenda? It is exactly what the U.N. wants local communities in the U.S. to implement – reduced personal property rights and reduce personal liberty. So, please be honest with the citizens of Lancaster County and tell them your true agenda. If it is such a great idea you should not have to dress it up and disguise it.

On November 16, 2010, Lincoln Independent Business Association Board of Directors wrote:

LIBA Board Statement

On November 14, 2010, Pat Dussault wrote:

I appreciated the chance to see the various growth scenarios and to learn of the factors that went into the recommendations for each. I strongly favor the compact development plan (C). While I understand the desire to not place limits on development, I do not see how Lincoln can continue to grow in such a low-density manner. Lincoln, with approximately 250K people, has a land area of 75 sq miles. Omaha, with nearly twice the population, has an area of less than 120 sq miles (Chicago, with more than ten times Lincoln's population, has an area just over three times that of Lincoln). Even now, 30 minutes or more are required to drive across Lincoln north-south, east-west, or from southeast Lincoln to downtown. At the same time, a number of close-in neighborhoods are decaying because of low property values. I like the idea of finding incentives to encourage redevelopment in areas within the current city limits.

On November 10, 2010, Marcy Ganow wrote:

I appreciate the opportunity to comment and the availability of the in depth documents on the lplan website. I think a hybrid scenario map would be preferred based off of Scenario A and Scenario C. Acreage limitations are too severe in Scenario C and would be difficult to enforce. A stronger enforcement policy would be required to make this scenario a reality. Limiting new acreage construction to the existing rural water districts as in Scenario B is a more permissive model and is more likely to be enforceable. It would be naive to expect that no acreage development would occur outside the bedroom communities as depicted in Scenario C. There is a taking of sorts that would occur to the existing rural water districts if new development in their pre-existing districts was curtailed through Scenario A or C. Tier I land growth pattern in Scenario A would be my recommendation in the northwest quadrant of the city. That region has the potential to draw new housing that could balance some of the housing need and move some of the "new" transportation trips away from the center-south pattern that currently exists. North and Northeast growth should be encouraged. If Scenario C is ultimately chosen as the preferred alternative, existing development incentives will not be sufficient to allow the creation of the new forms of housing desired or needed in the coming years. New forms and types of development alternatives will be needed to transform underutilized land and encourage appropriate infill development. General Questions about plan documents to date: The detailed analysis document mentions a reimbursement to rural water districts is under discussion. It does not clearly state why. Could additional explanation be provided? Does the 2040 scenarios all presume that the city will not extend water services to either Emerald or Denton in the Tier I time horizon? Further development to the south and west might increase political pressure to provide such services. Upsizing pipes and wastewater reconstruction is likely necessary in all scenarios, not just in Scenario C. Scenario C would just be the more predominant need. Our city is getting to the age where service disconnections are occuring because pipes are sinking or land is heaving. The current city policy of not notifying land owners of service disconnects when they are found hides a problem that exists. In my opinion neither the land area from Van Dorn to Old Cheney in the Stevens Creek region or the W.Van Dorn to Denton Rd section on the west needs to be as extensive as it currently is on the Tier I maps in the scenarios. I am interested in the rationale behind the size of those areas included.

On November 8, 2010, Wilbur Dasenbrock wrote:

I favor the Urban Growth Scenario, C-Compact option. This growth is an efficient way to grow using existing infrastructure. I would like to see further effort to enhance and beautify the existing City. Plant Trees and manage them well.

On November 8, 2010, Crystal Powers wrote:

I am pleased Lincoln is thinking ahead in their growth plans. I strongly encourage the city pursue option C, the Compact Growth plan for several reasons: 1 - Farmland is a very valuable resource. Urban sprawl takes up land that should be used to feed our community and will be essential for feeding a growing world population. 2 - Reduced infrastructure. Less city money needs to be spent on building and maintaining dispersed roads, sewer, water, and other city infrastructure. 3 - Making Lincoln and more close knit community. When growth occurs within neighborhoods instead of just building new ones, new families move in and property values stay higher, improving neighborhood diversity and energy.

On November 8, 2010, Nancy Armstrong Johnson wrote:

I strongly feel we should be careful to support and preserve what we already have before acquiring more territory and the accoutrements that go with it. Also, I like the dynamic synergy found when ideas bounce off each other in the close proximity of urban environments.

On November 6, 2010, Tom Lynch wrote:

I strongly endorse Scenario C, the compact growth option. There's far too much sprawl already. Sprawl is bad for the community and bad for the environment. Let's get real. These plans should be designed for the good of the community, not to enrich developers.

On November 5, 2010, Cathy B. wrote:

I believe that Scenario C, the Compact Growth Scenario makes the most sense for Lincoln. We already have a great deal of housing stock available in the core areas of our city. Reinvesting in these areas will help keep our entire city strong and vital. Expanding only along the edges of our city runs the risk of creating an "inner-city area" where investment in businesses and housing runs dry. I believe that Scenario C would still provide developers and builders work opportunities while keeping our City strong.

On November 5, 2010, Carmen Maurer wrote:

I prefer the Compact Growth Scenario. It envisions the desire of Lincoln's present and future workforce to be closer to the major state and university employers. It facilitates a simpler life-style and lessens the ever increasing costs associated with long commutes to work. This is the model that data in other parts of our country says we are going. Let's not follow (as we usually do); let's take the lead.

On November 5, 2010, Dian Pickerel wrote:

Lincoln needs to have great flexibility in planning for future growth. We would hate to loose out to Hickman and the surrounding small communities. That tax base needs to stay in Lincoln. Government needs to be very pro business, and not hamstring development to any section of Lincoln.

On November 5, 2010, Alison Krohn wrote:

I should have posted this comment on the Journal Star article but I hope Lincoln's growth will protect the salt tiger beetle and the salt marshes which are truly unique to Lancaster County. I wish the 27th street interchange had never been built. I wish the interstate had stayed south of town but that was long before people were aware of the impact interstate construction would have on commercial development. Thank you for soliciting public input so effectively!

On November 5, 2010, Allan Butler wrote:

Talking to you after the presentation, it became clear that what I think of as "true acreages" (20's or clustered 20-acre-average) are not affected by the A-B-C planning choices. Small-lot quasi-acreages would be, and I think should be controlled. Clearly political will is going to be needed to get policies put in place and actually restrain sprawl by zoning and denials of applications. Only if developer free-for-all can in fact be contained is the Compact Growth option C a meaningful plan. It has a shot at success, because the recession has largely shut down development. Should you be able to judiciously control the re-opening of the spigot there is a unique opportunity to redirect the development stream from growth around the city limits to growth within. Assuming you can do so, option C is best.

On November 5, 2010, Russell Irwin wrote:

I did not get a response from the Board of Clinton Neighborhood Org, but my personal preference is for the compact growth method as is easier and more financially viable. Thanks.

On November 4, 2010, Lincoln Chamber of Commerce wrote:

Letter from the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce

On November 4, 2010, Kit Boesch/Human Services Administration wrote:

Letter from Kit Boesch of the Lincoln/Lancaster County Human Services Administration

Staff Response to Kit Boesch

On November 4, 2010, Russell Miller wrote:

While Plan C might be attractive we must not forget the water and sewer lines of that area are 80 plus years old and need to be replaced; no matter what plan is chosen. The important question is the funding sources for infrastructure replacement for the area built before 1950 and the infrastructure for new growth on the fringe.

On November 4, 2010, Cory Hoagstrom wrote:

I would vote for plan B.

On November 4, 2010, Mike Eckert wrote:

The compact growth option "C" is unfeasible as redevelopment is too expensive for developers to create housing that is affordable or can compete with the products in new areas. If growth in a suburban prairie town is artificially pushed inward it will inevitably drive up land values, house values and therefore property taxes in areas where many are living on fixed incomes. Not to mention it will require the use of eminent domain by the city to assemble parcels large enough to do redevelopment. LPS and LES have also commented (in the Growth Scenario Analysis appendix) that the option C will cost them the most. All the costs of option C are not accounted for in the picture presented to the LComp Committee and on this website. The Compact Growth scenario, "C", is unwarranted, unfeasible, and not practical for the culture of Lincoln. The silent majority of Lincoln's citizens have demonstrated for 70+ years that they prefer to live on a 60-70 foot wide standard city lots with a front and rear yard that gives them space for kids and a dog. The implication that it is cheaper - to taxpayers - to develop within the existing city, soley because the city's infrastructure costs are less takes an uncomprehensive look at the bigger picture of those issues that will impact taxpaying citizens. It costs, on average, 3 times more fix, repair and widen already built sewer mains, water mains and roads on the interior than it does to build them in new growth areas. More density in the core also means more storm water run off in areas where there are not detention cells and development in the floodplain in those areas of town annexed before 2004 is allowed without having to comply with no-net-rise requirements. Please look at all the facts. Lincoln is wonderfully planned community with a drainage basin gravity sewer flow model that has provided consistency and transparency for Lincoln's homebuyers, apartment dwellers, and businesses. Let's continue to embrace that and let the free market continue to confirm that balanced concentric growth is the secret to why Lincoln is such a great place to live and work.

On November 4, 2010, Susan Kirkpatrick wrote:

Gorwth Scenario A and B are much more flexible for growht in Nebraska. Here in Lincoln, we are not a land locked, limited piece of property like Manhatten or other high density, urban growth area. OUr culture is to have an agricultural, spacious envinronment, in which we use our cars. I do not think it is realistic to think that supply and demand would support an urban growth scenario. Also, let the market decide. I think it will find its own way, as developers are going to subscribe to waht thier clients are asking for. In that vein,. I think there would be more movement toward our surrounding communities, like Hickam, Eagle, Waverly, etc. That will continue to reduce Lincoln's overall ability to collect property tax, as well as support utilities and sevices. East Lincoln is prime for delvelopment and long overdue. I highly prefer Scenario B Stevens Creek, but would also support A.

On November 4, 2010, Lin Quenzer wrote:

I am strongly in favor of Scenario C! I believe that to build on a green philosophy, the City should focus on a compact design that maximizes our infrastructure dollars. We need to have a model that allows us to greatly improve mass transit services, so a smaller footprint makes route service easier to maintain. A green belt around the city would help buffer the city & allow a better transition to acreage development & ag uses. Sprawl needs to be curtailed!

On November 4, 2010, Anonymous wrote:

I prefer Scenario C - compact growth.

On November 4, 2010, Christine Hodges wrote:

The options I would like to support are those that maintain green space along the recreational trails, for example, to allow acreage development along the MoPac Trail. Higher density areas could be built farther away from the trails. People enjoy Lincoln's trails. It would spoil them to line them with the back sides of houses and apartment buildings. In terms of the residents, themselves, security would be hard to maintain in housing areas with trails allowing 24-hour access to people's back yards. Green buffer zones are especially important because the trend in housing development is for bigger homes and smaller yards. The newer developments utilize two-story duplexes, doubling the number of homeowners per lot. Plus, the lots have little space between the homes. I wish that zoning would set a yard size as percentage of house square footage. If that isn't done, common areas that are planted with shrubs and trees are all the more important to keep this city beautiful.

On November 4, 2010, Anonymous wrote:

The no-growth scenario is conspicuously absent. A variety of looming crises all point to continued deflation - however you wish to define the term - for a long, long time to come. ess Lincoln is to become a playground for the plutocracy, I'd suggest adding the fourth option to the mix.

On November 4, 2010, Christy Aggens wrote:

All the best intentions for urban infill development can very easily backfire. We should learn from previous mistakes, enforce strict design standards, increase moderate and upper income housing in the city's core neighborhoods, as well as affordable housing and home ownership. Which ever plan is adapted, the health of the city's core must of the highest consideration.

On November 4, 2010, George E. Wolf wrote:

This is my vote for Scenario C, the most frugal and environmentally sound of the three proposals.

On November 4, 2010, Ron wrote:

I look at the group observations on page 3 and I am STUNNED. Obviously, the only people who participated must not work and must not pay taxes. I would say to forget the bicycle [sic] and LET THE CITY GROW naturally and don't spend any money except on the by-pass routes.

On November 3, 2010, Heath wrote:

I support Plan C - Compact Growth. With energy cost rising, compact growth can better support public transportation, walking districts, etc. It will also reduce infrastructure cost like roads, utilities, etc.

On November 3, 2010, Tim Kirkpatrick wrote:

Based on the expected population growth the city is going to need more acres. Option C does not work. Option A looks costly as the infrastructure has to be developed in multiple directions. Option B looks like the best choice for a number of reasons other than what I have listed here. I support Plan B

On November 3, 2010, Travis Davis wrote:

I believe Scenario C is the best option. As I read about each of the three plans, this one seemed to be the most forward thinking and sustainable. I believe this our goal, to come up with ideas and implementation that supports our well-being into the future. Scenario A has been the way we have developed. Maybe it made the most sense in years past, but with the current information which is available, Scenario C is our best hope for success as a city now and into the coming years.

On November 3, 2010, Dick Campbell wrote:

While a compact growth plan appears to be the least expensive, it is not just road and sewer costs that need to be considered. A denser city is nice but that alone is not sufficient to handle the desired growth of the community. We need to be willing to recognize that some people will naturally consider a more downtown location once the arena and all of its amenities get constructed. They will be drawn to live in that environment. Those that want to consider only compact growth are not looking with a very wide vision for the community. For many years, back I believe to Helen Boosalis and Doug Brogden, we have operated with a consensus multi directional growth pattern. This should be maintained. We will need to have all options available for the projected growth of the community. While it is enticing to focus on the Stevens Creek basin, that should also not be the only location for focused growth.While someone might read these comments and determine that I am for urban sprawl, that is far from the case. We presently are developing the first full New Urbanism project in the city and are successfully developing the ideas for a community within the community. Multiple options for housing exist from townhomes, row houses, mansionnplexes to bungalow cottages and 6 other sizes of single family lots. All very walkable to the Marketplace for their daily shopping needs. I understand Traditional neighborhood development and believe it is and always should be an option in the community, but not the only option. We need to think like a total community and recognize that there are different tastes and desires within the community and all should be available and offered. Multi directional growth offers Lincoln the best options for this continuing to be an inclusive and viable community.

On November 3, 2010, Julia Lostroh wrote:

Would like to vote for Plan B. Thank you for the information.

On November 2, 2010, Diane Kaye wrote:

Definitely Plan C - compact growth. Why keep growing outward and letting the interior decay? Why go against "green" trends which encourage less sprawl, more efficient transportation, and walkable/bikeable destinations? With an aging population that will be downsizing, will we have that many people wanting big homes in the suburbs? Plan C is better.

On November 2, 2010, David wrote:

I prefer Plan C which will limit urban sprawl and save tax dollars.

On November 1, 2010, John Baylor wrote:

My wife and I prefer to limit urban sprawl and the compact plan is the best option. It will strengthen neighborhoods and keep the city center from deteriorating as has happened in other cities. We are already beginning to see encouraging downtown condominium development; this will strengthen the city center. The compact plan will limit the need to drive long distances in the city and encourage alternative transportation. Additionally, as pointed out in the recent Journal Star article, it will keep current taxpayers paying for the infrastructure that we use, and let developers who profit from new developments bear the cost of new infrastructure required for those developments.

On November 1, 2010, Lincoln resident wrote:

Plan C is my prefered option.

On October 31, 2010, Cliff Thomas wrote:

I would support Plan A or Plan B. Prefer Plan B. I would not support the Compact Growth approach.

On October 29, 2010, Bob Philipps wrote:

I support Plan C. This plan would help reduce urban sprawl and the need for additional costs associated with more highway /freeway construction. We have made the vote to build the downtown area lets continue with that direction.

On October 28, 2010, Brady Yoder wrote:

I like the Stevens Creek growth area after leaving Lincoln in 79 and coming back this year I was surprised by the growth south and not so much to the east and north and like some others there needs to be a better way to get around town like Hwy 77 but on the east side like 635 in KC or the ...

On October 28, 2010, Robert L. Bryany wrote:

To meet the needs of all of Lincoln, we need to encourage Multi-Directional Growth. A Master Plan that gives preverence to an area would increase costs. To continue to grow in all directions we need to improve cross town traffic conditions. Someday, some leader will finally widen So. 27th Street.

On October 28, 2010, John Ringsmuth wrote:

I believe that the City of Lincoln is in great need of lots more one way roads going long distances. For instance 16th and 17th streets which go from downtown to South Street. I don't think that even these streets are long enough. I think that instead of widening "O" street a few years ago, "O" street should have been made a one way street from 16th all the way to 84th carrying traffic east and then the traffic west to 16th. I know that they are a bit too far apart to be ideal but it would have been a very viable option. My point is that as Lincoln continues to grow, major thoroughfares of parallel one way streets must be planned for a good transportation network. 84th street in my opinion is barely OK at best. It would have been a lot better if it were two complete separate one way streets.

On October 27, 2010, Sean Smetter wrote:

Due to the previous administrations lack of a pro growth policy we find our city behind in a lot of these areas. We need to be flexable and have a policy of more of a wide spread growth like discribed in plan A. This will allow for people of all ethnic and financial status to choose areas that are more suited to their budgets and demagraphics

On October 27, 2010, Tim Golden wrote:

No growth would be the smartest option, improve the quality of Lincoln first. Place C would be the best after No growth.

On October 27, 2010, Bob Wiechert wrote:

For the short term I would favor compact growth, most of the infrastructure is in place and mostly paid-for. The long term could move to general growth, as the goals for compact growth are achieved.

On October 27, 2010, Bob Marshall wrote:

I am opposed to the Compact Growth approach for many reasons. First, it is not our lifestyle here in the midwest as shown by the number of acreages popping up in Lancaster County every day. Second,with Compact Growth, property values Accelerate making housing less affordable for many potential homeowners. I would like to see a combination of Multi-directional and Stevens Creek approach to the future of Lincoln and Lancaster County.

On October 27, 2010, Charlie Yost wrote:

The third option is the best, but I would rather see even less outward growth and more focus on redeveloping the inner parts of the city. This would be best for the environment and should require less expense for new infrastructure. As we look toward the future we should be planning for what is best for people and the environment for the long term and not just the immediate interests of developers.

On October 27, 2010, Judy Boucher wrote:

Preferred Plan is Plan C for Compact Growth. --BabyBoomer senior population is on the rise! --More seniors like ourselves are downsizing & looking for small but quality built living with less yardwork, etc (we recently went from a 4-bedroom house to a 2-bedroom townhome, did some updating & love it!) --Seniors selling houses will make available houses to the younger families with children. "quality vs. quantity"...improve on what we already have. --Staying & improving within our current boundaries will keep a true city megalopolis --Staying & improving what we already have downtown will help KEEP a true businesses to develop there.

On October 27, 2010, Rosina Paolini wrote:

The compact plan is the plan of the future. The compact plan will allow for efficient growth with the focus on increasing density. Increasing density will strengthen sense of community with the sharing of green space, play areas and transportation waiting areas. The compact plan will increase the use of mass transit and alternative transportation. Bus routes will have routes that transport to increased density areas to places of work,restraunts,grocery stores, parks, pools and libraries with the focus on the strengthening the neighborhood infrastructure. The compact plan will promote the use of bicycles, and segways on bike lanes and trails that can connect people with the places they need to get in a safe, efficient manner. Multi modal hubs will allow for parking for bikes and cars so that buses may take them to their final destination. Having bike racks on each bus will give the commuter the ability to travel the city in a timely manner. The car will not be as necessary thus decreasing overall carbon emissions and increasing community consciousness.

On October 26, 2010, NAS wrote:

My personal preference is to limit urban sprawl and adapt to Plan C, because I believe that will save tax dollars and the environment. Whatever plan is selected, it will be a failure unless the selected plan includes some means to provide for efficient traffic plans for getting around the city. If the city is compact, there's less need for new roads and infrastructure and more dollars for updating those that exist now. But you have got to do something to get rid of the stop and go traffic and plan some major thoroughfares with limited stops and access so we can get from one side to town to the other in less than an hour. People north of O street have a legitimate complaint - There are many of us southies that never go north of O because it is just too unhandy.

On October 26, 2010, Don wrote:

The city and county should work on south and east bypass's first then Plan C.

On October 26, 2010, K Clear wrote:

I support Growth Plan C (Compact Growth). It will help reduce urban sprawl and allow for many benefits such as relieving pressure on the need to expand infrastructure (utilities, schools, retail, roads), allow for growth of community/neighborhood groups, reduce need for transportation (as people can walk or bike to stores, etc.),and not require development of more land. One concern though, is maintaining the same amount of parks and natural environment within the city to prevent the onset of a concrete jungle. Regardless, the compact growth scenario captures many aspects of sustainability which will make Lincoln a livable city for generations to come.

On October 26, 2010, Carol wrote:

I looked briefly at the plans, but I think Lincoln needs to correct the mistakes of the past. We have beautiful, historic homes that have been turned into slum houses and we've allowed "slip ins" to further take away from the aesthetic appeal of these neighborhoods. I would LOVE to buy an old, historic house and restore it, but the neighborhoods that many of them are in are not a good area to raise my family. Lincoln also needs to decide if it wants to be a the same old "small town" or a progressive city that will attract and retain young people and jobs. The only reason I'm here is because my husband refuses to leave the state. Otherwise, I would be long gone.

On October 26, 2010, Bobby Nickolite wrote:

#1 thing we need to do is bring in big business. We need to retract the idiotic amendment that states you cannot build a building higher than the capital. More business= more revenue. Its smart and simple.

On October 26, 2010, Greg Dudley wrote:

I think that all of the scenarios have some validity but, what the politicians and their back pocket special interests think is irrelevant. The landowners should come first; they know their land better than anyone. The landowners have the sole power to move forward and they should have the primary consideration. Our thoughts and considerations of what the future might bring is the conclusion of our own intentions and motivations, nothing more, nothing less. I am no different; I think the Waverly to Lincoln cooridor has the most potential for growth and Yes I do have a development concept however; I would prefer to contact all of those landowners and invite them to a common table to present my concept to them before I discuss it with the populus.

On October 26, 2010, Perley Boucher wrote:

I like C compact growth. I believe this approach makes more efficient use of existing infrastructure and services per capita, this can be a substantial cost savings. I also believe that this approach gives incentive to existing homes and businesses to maintian/upgrade their property. I would think it would raise existing property value as demand for current fixed space increases...similarly it would increase existing business profits due to increased population density and thus demand for goods and services.

On October 26, 2010, Scott Bulfinch wrote:

If we are truly serious about conservation of resources, sustainability, fuel economy and all such other things conveniently grouped under the buzz word label of "green", then scenario C is the only way to go. This gives the nudge to reinvigoration of the city's core neighborhoods as it minimizes excessive sprawl on the margins. A lot of details here to be worked out, but I believe this is definitely the direction Lincoln (& a lot of other urban areas) should be heading.

On October 26, 2010, V.T. Miller wrote:

Growth is desirable but it should managed or directed to avoid excessive costs for installation of the required infrastructure and the inefficiency of urban sprawl. Growth does not pay for itself. Impact fees were instituted to make sure that new developments pay part of the cost of extending infrastructure. But the Council has removed the requirement that impact fees should keep pace with inflation and as a result impact fees now pay less than previously. Also, rather than linking impact fees to the Consumer Price Index they should be using the Producer Price Index (PPI), which more accurately reflects construction costs. I would hope that any plan for growth could somehow discourage or restrict (perhaps higher impact fees?) developments comprised of large-acreage plots. A relatively compact city is a more efficient city. I am in favor of the Complete Streets initiative and requiring connector trails in new developments. Thanks of the chance to have an input.

On October 26, 2010, Bob Norris wrote:

I prefer Scenario B.

On October 26, 2010, Dan Schlitt wrote:

My first preference would be the compact growth scenerio. However, actually implimenting it would require comittment from planning staff, the planning commission, the city council and the mayor which has never been seen in the past and there is no reason to believe that it would be present in the future. Simply put, this plan would never work. The symetric growth model has the highest chance of having cooperation from the developers. It provides the most flexibility and will require less backbone on the part of the palnning and governing officials. So it is the best choice for actual adoption. This does not mean that compact development should not be encouraged.

On October 25, 2010, Chris Cary wrote:

Looking forward, I think compact growth is the best way to go. It's more economical for the city, and better for the residents as well. Compact development makes transportation and amenities easier to provide, and those are the things that make a bigger city affordable and nice to live in.

On October 24, 2010, Elisabeth Reinkordt wrote:

I believe Draft Scenario 3 is by far the most sensible. Considering our current transportation infrastructure, the cost of fuel and the depletion of natural resources, and the efficiency and heightened community interconnectedness that come from increased density in urban development, it is in the best interests of the city to grow for our people, not just our developers. Focus on community resources, energy-efficient building, a vibrant downtown, and ample green spaces to keep our city an enjoyable place to live.

On October 21, 2010, L.H. Wikoff wrote:

Sorry, I didn't care for any of the three plans. I don't agree on the under-lying assumption, which is "growth is good": growth in population and land consumption. My plan would be titled: "Viable and Vibrant - Steady-state Sustainability".Emphasizing "growth with-in" and QUALITY over quanity. Rebuilding, restoring, re-using and renewing the current city proper. Some of the oldest infra-structure is 100 years old and decaying. A city of around a 1/3 of million is plenty, beyond that, one risks a lowering of the "quality of life". Save the out-lying areas for the bountiful agriculture and watersheds we are unfornately losing. We need to stop the sprawl, spread of acreages and this planned sprawl of the future contained in these three plans. For those concerned with lowering our "global carbon footprint", home is a good place to start. We should promote local business and entrprenuers, instead of trying to lure and subsidize/tif more big business and transnational corporations to come here. I've lived here all of my life and have traveled to many BIG cities, had a great time, but always left with the thought, "they are great to visit, but I'd sure hate to live there"! In the future, I hope I never have to say that about Lincoln.

On October 14, 2010, Seacrest & Kalkowski wrote:

Letters from Seacrest & Kalkowski

Staff Response to Seacrest & Kalkowski Letters

On September 30, 2010, Chris Hilton wrote:

I like plan C with the high amount of infill development. I would prefer to see more development occur in the south west portion of the city, in the Van Dorn area. This area of town is sort of a blight and almost abandoned. Plan A has this, but it has very little dedication to infill. Lincoln is getting more and more sparse and spread out. Pre world war II Lincoln is wonderful, relatively dense, and you can still easily find a single family home. Post world war II Lincoln gets progressively worse as the developments get newer. If we go C we have to be very careful to maintain our parks, and other public spaces, and continue to improve them. I'd also prefer that we don't do all the infill development in the downtown area. Let's not make a super urban downtown surrounded by suburban Lincoln. Let's spread the multi-family housing around. And let's avoid multi-family housing complexes that try to shut themselves in as separated communities. An apartment building should be a part of the neighborhood it's in. I also really like the lack of acreage development in plan C.