HONEY CREEK

This is one of the most important votes to be taken by council in recent years, and I appreciate the fact that all council members are present. I do not know the outcome of the vote, and my statement is not meant to influence any one else’s vote; it is my personal view.

The importance of this vote is not necessarily the fact that we are rezoning 50 acres in northeast Troy, the importance of this vote is to address the continuing future and viability of Troy. If we as a community do not continue to look forward, we will be left behind.

I want to commend the Law & Ordinance Committee on its recommendation; their report is well reasoned; and Chairwoman Mrs. Saxton insured that the process was smooth, efficient and educational. I also want to thank PTK for their presentation at the high school.

The issue that I believe we are addressing with this vote is leadership and the future of Troy. Mr. Mercer and Mrs. Saxton have been criticized that they are lame duck council members; that they do not have a political repercussion to their vote. But that response begs the question: Why would they just not go along with the referendum vote? Why not vote with an apparent citizen majority? Why did they vote yes? You can ask them, and their report is compelling. But I have my own opinion.

Mr. Douglas’ vote, as a candidate, was one of the most courageous votes I have witnessed as a council member.

The citizens of Troy elect their council members to make decisions and lead them. We all spend numerous hours every week educating ourselves on various issues, and making informed decisions. Occasionally, we get phone calls and input from citizens, but in reality, that is rare.

We are elected to determine what is best for the city, which may be somewhat at odds with what the citizens want. For example, the citizens do not want to pay more taxes however; council had to vote on an income tax years ago. The citizens may not want increased water and sewer rates; however council would not be able to provide continued high quality service without an increase. Our views need to be more global than the effect on the individual.

We are elected to lead and we all do our best to do so. It’s not possible to please everyone.

The issue of Honey Creek is not new. We as a council have spent hundreds of hours on this issue alone. Council passed this plan many months ago because it was in the best interest of the city.
The referendum indicated that the citizens did not want that project to proceed. Because of the various hearings, comments and meetings, it is difficult to decipher the objection on the vote in any kind of analytical evaluation. We have specifically heard that some voters rejected the plan for reasons completely unrelated to the plan: such as water problems in other parts of the city. We heard one story about a contrary vote based on the city’s handling of the new ninety million dollar Honda project. These reasons give cause to reflect on what the vote actually represented.

For years, the citizens and businesses in the northeast section of the city have complained of no growth, lack of commercial outlets, being ignored by the city, etc. We have been contacted by businesses that are continuing to suffer, and we understand and believe that residential growth is necessary for the survival of the economic life of the area.

The city has approved housing in the Nottingham Subdivision, and of course, built a new fire station, in an effort to assure the citizens in that area continued service by the city.

With the new fire station, the intersection of North Market Street and Troy-Urbana Road will be updated and made safer.

This leads me to the specifics of Honey Creek.

Mr. Douglas outlined the various reasons that we have heard objecting to the plan; most of them are not viable objections and the city staff has presented us with answers to most of those questions. They involve traffic, city services, water, housing, economy, etc. A couple of concerns have not been specifically addressed or fully answered, so, in addition to the matters already answered by the committee, I want to provide my opinion on some of these issues.

1. Water and flooding issue
This seems to be a continuing concern throughout the city, and citizens object
that Honey Creek will aggravate their problem. This is my perspective: currently, the property is undeveloped farmland; there are no controls. Rain and water will flow, and continue to flow, unrestricted across this property without any requirement of abatement. If development occurs, as a result of engineering studies, city and state requirements, the water will be controlled more than it is now. Which would be better?

2. Vacancy of housing
There have been concerns about the number of houses that are vacant in the City of Troy. Troy’s numbers seem to coincide with other neighboring communities. While the city is not in the business of buying and selling homes, it is mindful of the issue. The only way to sell houses is to provide businesses and opportunities within the city, which is a priority of the City Council and Troy Development Council. My position is that the vacant homes in our central city, historic district, and even in most of our R-4 districts are not the competitive market for Honey Creek homes. A family moving to Troy will choose its location according to various factors (school, close to work, etc.) but mainly be influenced by price, amenities and “new house versus established home”. A new family it not weighing Michigan Avenue properties versus, Honey Creek homes as a choice when they decide to move to Troy. Our community is so attractive and strong, people want to live here; we can’t prevent this but we can control growth.

In addition, if we stopped approving subdivisions of this size in the City of Troy, where would Troy be without Westbrook, Kings Chapel, Gas Light Village, and Sherwood?
Finally, I want to reiterate the phase construction regarding the houses. Honey Creek wants to build approximately 25 houses in 18 months. Troy has built approximately 150 houses every year for the last 7 years.

If Honey Creek does not sell 20 of those 25 houses, they will stop. There will be a small subdivision on that location, and it will not be developed until it is feasible. Honey Creek will be competing with other new subdivisions in other parts of the city, not with Downtown or Historical Troy. And, the development is taking place in an area of the city where the citizens have demanded help.

I also believe that the number of homes is so small that it can be deemed “controlled growth”.

If Honey Creek doesn’t want to start Phase 2, they won’t..

In addition, the developer will be required to post a performance bond which will make sure that all of the infrastructure is complete. No one has suggested that more money will be spent on city services. Completion of Phase 1 is scheduled for a year and a half away. Thus economic factors will change, and the construction will “live or die” by those factors.


3. School
Miami East, while denying an interest in this decision, has thrust itself it by media accounts and statements.

I will not rehash those facts, nor the fact that I believe the money generated through real estate taxes and school income taxes for Miami East will more than compensate the school for its growth. But if Miami East determines at a later date, that it is not happy with the current situation, and that it does not want the area, all it has to do is petition the state for a change of boundaries, and the Troy City Schools will be happy to provide service to that area.

That would be a happy ending for all the parties involved.
4. Referendum

I recognize that the citizens have rejected the proposal. I have tried to explain my role in light of that vote. I have commended my fellow council members on the Law and Ordinance Committee for their review and vote.

I have attempted to address each objectionable issue raised by the citizens.

In addition, I had discussed this matter with the Law Director, Mr. Dixon. If you recall, this same project was approved; there have been no changes; I am unaware of any new objections.

Council’s vote, in addition to being fair to the citizens and in the best interest of the city, must also be fair to the property owner.

In conclusion, I understand that a “no” vote could be attacked, and subject to a lawsuit. If successful, a court could rezone the land, or order damages against the city. That decision might not be subject to any council action or referendum. This is a viable issue, and creates a risk that I believe is substantial. A “yes
vote whether agreeable or not, would still be subject to referendum, and allow the citizens to choose whether to follow council’s decision.

Because of all of the issues raised, have been or will be addressed by the city, by council, by the administration, by the developers as required by the city, by the economic factors of growth, and because controlled residential growth in the north east section of Troy with appropriate safeguards is in the best interest of the citizens and the future of Troy, I vote “yes” on this ordinance.

Alan R. Clark
Council at Large
March 19, 2007