City Consultants Push for High Density! The City of Johns Creek is undergoing a review on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This is the zoning map of What can go Where within the City.
The consultants hired by the City of Johns Creek have continued to press for high-density housing throughout the review.
A survey was used to gather residents’ input regarding future development within the city. At first, the survey provided for response options that only included increased development at different levels of density. The survey was recently altered to allow for a choice of “none”. Despite the change, many residents felt the survey was rigged.
St Ives resident Ed Thompson wrote to the consultants:
The survey seems structured to drive to a foregone conclusion: higher density, multi-purpose development, and further urbanization. Several questions are written in a manner that suggests the desired response. As an early example in the survey, the question “A Town Center development will be successful if it is built at an appropriate scale.” implies that a Town Center is imminent.
A further question asks, “Workforce housing gives people who work essential services within the city (police officers, firemen, teachers, medical personnel, etc) the ability to live closer to where they work. Would you be supportive of an initiative to create more workforce housing in Johns Creek?”. What is not asked is whether the respondent would be willing to see the overall property values in the city decline as a result.
Another example is the question, “Creating a diverse business community is a key to improving economic development in Johns Creek. What types of businesses would you like to see more, the same, or less?”. The question implies that a diverse business community and economic development should be explicit goals of the city. Why is that more important than providing for a safe, residential community with room to enjoy nature and the outdoors?
Certain questions are posed to lead the respondent to the desired answer, for example, “Facilities that support higher education (i.e. satellite campuses, education centers) are becoming a focus in cities that wish to increase their economic competitiveness by offering courses and degree programs that will lead to higher paying jobs. Would you like to see a higher education center in Johns Creek that would provide courses from Metro Atlanta universities and/or universities from across the United States?”
Finally, the sections asking for physical design and visual design preferences have added an option to select “None” (I don’t recall this as a choice when I took the survey a few months ago). Given the design of the web pages, the option to select “None” is easily overlooked.
In summary, the design of this survey certainly feels as if it was purposely written to provide the “justifications” to suggest that the community supports the continued urbanization and unfettered and ever higher density development that is ruining the character of Johns Creek.
--------------------------
Now the Consultants have come up with a proposal for the Atlanta Athletic Club Fields.
According to Citizens for Johns Creek Pastoral Protection, the design includes a 6-acre open area, a community events center, as well as mixed-use options including commercial and retail, single-family housing, townhomes/condos, and a 300 plus unit multi-family dwelling. This plan would also include more of a grid system transportation plan connecting the property to various curb cuts at both Old Alabama and Medlock Bridge.
With the recent widening of Old Alabama Road, and current proposals to widen Medlock Bridge Road, the question must be raised: is the goal of the city to provide traffic relief, or is it to pave the way for additional high-density development? The development proposal for the Atlanta Athletic Club Fields, and traffic congestion relief objectives seem to be at odds.
What are your thoughts on City Consultants Push for High Density?
Please take a couple of minutes to give your thoughts at the survey link: https://connectjohnscreek.com/public-input/
Sources: Citizens for Johns Creek Pastoral Protection & Connect Johns Creek
This is not the first time the City has started with it's conclusion, hired consultants to support that conclusion, then attempted to push that conclusion onto the residents of Johns Creek.
Fortunately there are residents willing to take the time and energy to challenge this way of doing business.
We need your help to fight this continued push towards higher density living which we do not seek.
Please write your Council Members and question everything that you believe that will lead to a Johns Creek we will not recognize in 10 years.
In the midst of trying to widen 141 and pave what will effectively be a freeway through the heart of Johns Creek, why would we even be considering more high density housing?
I'm curious - what does our City Council consider to be their measure of success. Is it:
a) Quality of life in Johns Creek, or
b) Population count
Actions speak louder than words. Any reasonable assessment would have to conclude that quality of life takes a back seat to unbridled growth that continues to erode the character of our city.
You nailed it Ed. I would be willing to do anything to keep Johns Creek thy way it is now. No more development of empty storefronts and "multi" family dwellings. No more development!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All my friends and acquaintances feel the same way. Watch the whole lot of them get voted out in the elections.
Bobby Jones Way is already a traffic light that impedes traffic during our busiest times of the day for a a few vehicles at a time. Now we are going to add hundreds of vehicles coming from the western side of 141, making that a much more active location?
Then we are planning to widen 141 and add two additional "half" lights to boot?
On Old Alabama we are going to need another traffic light between 141 and the OAR-Buice split?
How many more traffic lights do you think this City will add over the next 4 years? Will we continue to put the ingress and egress from shopping centers at equal service levels with our main arterial roads?
We need to set some transportation priorities in this community before we go any further. Ingress and egress to shopping centers should be a lower service priority, especially during rush hours, for instance.
Sure, it might be an inconvenience temporarily for the shopper. But once they get on the main road, they will get home much faster and come out far ahead than be forced to stop once or twice in front of every other shopping area they are going to pass.
Who is running for mayor next Nov?????
Johns Creek is filled with educated and successful people.
I'm sure there will be plenty of good choices on the ballots, come November.
Unfortunately, there are some wording effects, measurement errors, and sampling errors with the survey design. I'd suggest we use the book (link below) to minimize these effects when designing surveys for the populace in the future. Otherwise, we're wasting everyone's time. Like I said to the good folks with Pastoral Protection, we don't need to be paying 300k for consultants to tell us how to develop private property to raise government revenues via mixed use nodes.
https://www.amazon.com/Improving-Survey-Questions-Evaluation-Research/dp/0803945833
I fail to understand why we are hiring consultants using taxpayer dollars to suggest to property owners what they might do.
I also do not think we are being heard. Time and again the majority of residents say we do not want higher densities. And yet time and again they attempt to push higher densities upon us.
Take that land, buy it with the Parks Bond, and preserve it for the future.
There is NO commercial development within a half mile of that location. So why start now?
Something’s definitely missing here. Where’s the part where the CAC members tell the consultants that we already tried this once before and it was shot down in flames? Has that part not happened yet?
What led the consultants to focus so specifically on this particular private property, and produce such a detailed, complex (and ghostly reminiscent) plan? I find this quite curious. As asked by EJ Moosa, we’re paying consultants to do this?
Have the consultants floated balloons to make sure the height of any high-density multi-family dwelling isn’t visibly distractive to AAC golfers. Hint to consultants: That’s what happened with the earlier version of this idea.
I wonder what the Concord Missionary Baptist Church has to say about this.
It took from 1820 to 1985--when we built our home in Johns Creek--for our then unincorporated area of Fulton County to pass 60,000 citizens. From Wikipedia: By 2000, the grassroots movement to incorporate the Johns Creek area into a city was slowly developing. Residents wanted more control over issues such as traffic, growth, development and quality of life. They also sought a level of service that was a challenge for the sprawling Fulton County to provide.
During the meetings leading up to the initial Comprehensive Land Use Plan 10 years ago, the tone and attitude was COMPLETELY different from today. City Staff earnestly sought input from citizens. Maps and options were on display and easily accessible during flexible times. That encouraged participation. A dozen couples in our neighborhood attended & participated. We were not assailed with a pre-determined agenda! Comparisons presented were with similar communities!
When a survey is obviously skewed to create a specific desired result, Johns Creek citizens do not want to be manipulated, so they don't complete it. When $300,000+ is spent on 8, 10, 12 consultants to preach to citizens about the virtues of City Centers & High Density--when the citizens are there to voice their opinions--they discontinue coming to CLUP meetings. City Staff needs to appreciate citizens hired them--to achieve the goals Wikipedia documented above.
Johns Creek is now ~83,000, the 9th largest population in the state, & the 2nd highest density. It is important to remember that 60,000+ citizens created the city with specific goals in mind. We are still the vast majority. It is our children--successful, mature, adults--interested in returning to the community they have fond memories of growing up in, and raising their families. The best way to chase away successful millennials is take away their open space, and give them traffic!
We now have (1) Tilted surveys to support pre-determined results, (2) Manipulated CLUP meetings dominated by speakers promoting high density, (3) Desire to compete with high-volume roads GA400 & Peachtree Industrial Boulevard for north/south traffic, (4) Intrusive, expanded Building Maintenance Permitting & Regulation, (5) Bright, Rotating, LED Billboards--versus static billboards that may not have been built because they are no longer a viable business model...
Does this sound like what citizens sought in 1st paragraph above? It's time for Johns Creek citizens to speak up & speak out for "control over issues such as traffic, growth, development and quality of life." That's why WE created this city.
Mark Browning is correct. A vocal minority is transforming our community into something we do not seek. Our elected officials have bought into the concept of regionalism and higher density living without considering what brought the residents here in the first place.
Their "groupthink" from all of their regional meetings and experts is going to lead to our demise.
How many times and now much money has been spent to have "experts" come to our community, study it, and then tell us what we need to do. And each time the needs to do are the same:higher densities.
Apparently it is not enough for the COJC to do what they are charged to do:police, fire and traffic. Now they want to come into your homes and monitor what you are doing with your faucets and water heaters. And they are gonna charge you fees to do so.
Replacing a fixture in your bathroom that needs to have a copper pipe moved? Now that is the city's domain. And you are not only going to have to pay a fee, but have it inspected. Seriously?
If you are a do it yourself kind of guy, this is going to increase the cost of your repairs tremendously. And for what purpose? Have we had a plethora of leaky pipes that has threatened the City?
Have a look at the last line of this City Form:
http://www.johnscreekga.gov/JCGA/Media/PDF-CD/Building/building-permit.pdf
Fees Fees Fees.
Where does it stop? It doesn't.
Will these fees be going toward an expense that you have created for the local government? Nope.
The motto of this City should be changed to Johns Creek: "How Much Can We Squeeze Out of You"
This government does not have a reason to be inside of your home. You are capable of taking care of that yourself without the COJC.
Make your voices heard.
If they want that much control over my home, they can start paying part of my mortgage. Otherwise it is time they quit treating my home as THEIR property.
It isn't.
Many of us now know the millennial housing guilt trip that was publicly espoused by at least two City Council members is just a ruse. The real underlying issue is how groups like the Johns Creek Advantage want to address local business owner complaints that low-wage workers won’t commute here. We can’t turn the city into a business mecca with low-paid workers not able to live here. Now, the millennial ruse is being called “workforce housing” but with a newer ruse to disguise this as applying to “essential services” (police officers, firemen, teachers, medical personnel, etc). These are quotes from a question on the Comp Plan survey. Don’t ask me which altered version of the survey, I lost count! This is the newest way the city is distorting the concept of high-density housing.
I hope Johns Creek citizens are reading these comments and getting concerned. The alternative is to wait for the Comp Plan CAC meetings to reach the next pre-determined milestone. Given the typical public wake up delay, that might be too late. Wake up, Johns Creek!!
Zane Edge is right on the money.
We have businesses that need low income workers. We have groups that lobby our officials to provide transportation, and now housing for those workers.
What if we just have too many businesses in Johns Creek? What if some of those many shopping areas we have were converted back to single family homes? Would our community be better off? I have to think so.
Johns Creek's planners have painted us into a corner. The path from an empty corner to multi use has been laid out in all of their planning. But where is the possibility for the other direction?
It's already clear we do not need as many square feet of retail in Johns Creek as we have today.
And we have to subsidize the cost of labor by adding mass transit and affordable housing?
I'll be blunt. If you cannot get the labor you need for your business, you should raise your wages, not expect the public to subsidize their costs for you. The taxpayers have better things to do with their dollars. I am a firm believer that the government should not add to the cost of you running your business(think taxes and regulations).
But I am also a firm believer that public tax dollars should not be used to pick winners and losers via artificially lower wages, housing, or property taxes(think Development Authorities which exploit the legal code to lower property taxes for lucky businesses).
http://ejmoosa.com/blog3/2017/02/21/the-naked-truth-about-subsidized-wages/