28
Sep
09

We’re Back

City Council thinks this is progress!

City Council thinks this is progress!

You have found the place to be if you want to know about Property Owners Rights and the City of Mobile, Alabama.  We were originally formed out of a necessity to protect commercial property owners rights in the Spring Hill area.  There were those who saw no problem with infringing on the rights of others for their own personal and political agendas.

While some will say, including the local print media, we are merely a small group,  the truth is we represent almost 90% of all the commercial property owners in the Spring Hill area as defined by the City of Mobile, Alabama in their overlay for the Village of Spring Hill project.  90% is not a small group by anyone’s standards except for those who are blinded by their own ambitions.

Several new concerns have surfaced  in the past couple of months that will require our total commitment once again.  We do not believe that it is in the best interest of any community or neighborhood to be subjected to two different sets of rules.  In our opinion we believe there have been major discrepancies  in the way city planning and zoning regulations are being applied.  It would appear some of these problems may be heading for legal review.

At the present time, the promised proposed changes have not come to Spring Hill.

  • We still have unsightly power poles and lines that were promised to be removed.
  • We now have speed bumps made with expensive brick pavers at the intersection of Old Shell Rd. and McGregor Ave.
  • Traffic signals are not synchronized causing a reduction in traffic flow.
  • Four merging lanes of traffic have been eliminated causing possible economic hardship to local businesses.
  • Local Sign ordinances are not currently being followed.

After all of the time, energy, money and wasted man hours, to our knowledge, not ONE business has decided to opt for  the Village of Spring Hill code as passed by the City Council of the City of Mobile.  In fact, in a recent hearing before the City Planning Commission, one property owner was asked if they would be using the “current city wide code” or the “Village of Spring Hill code”.  The property owner replied the new code was too restrictive and they would remain under the present code.  Ironically, this person was, at one time, a supporter of the Village of Spring Hill plan.  While the original concept may have looked good on paper, it would appear, that even avid supporters are finding the VOS plan is impracticable and cost prohibitive to implement.

In reality, so far we have only seen some sidewalks, four speed bumps and a clock (the clock was paid for by private funds).  Where is all of the money that was reportedly being raised for the Spring Hill project?  At one time it was our understanding that over 1 million dollars had been raised or dedicated to this debacle.  Truth is, in our opinion, this was an ill-conceived project from the beginning.  It was based on a “cookie-cutter” template that had no basis in reality when it came to the uniqueness of Spring Hill.

CityWatchPac is all for progress, but not at the expense of property owners rights or the wasteful spending of our tax dollars on pet projects.

Advertisements


CWPAC Info

Monthly Archives

September 2009
S M T W T F S
    Oct »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

%d bloggers like this: