Sprawl!

The cities have no business telling the farmer to who he can sell his land.

But I will guess the purchaser of that land will like to have the snow plowed and the potholes fixed on the public roads that serve his new land, and maybe sewers, police and fire services.

When they ask me to build another remote fire house or pay to maintain an arterial road to their new development on the edge of town, then I get to urge my city council to build a more dense townto which it is easier to provide collective services.

According to "Urban planner", it sounds like someone can buy farmland and then demand to have a police station and a four lane road built next to his property. Somehow, I doubt that's how things happen.

My view on the issue is that preventing "sprawl" does nothing other to inflate property values by making available land off-limits, which is good for those who currently own land in the center of the city, and bad for everyone else.

The very notion of "sprawl" is completely arrogant. What does it mean other than people are living where some other people who think they know better think they shouldn't be living?

Arranging a city so that the cost to the city government is minimized will not likely lead to the best arrangement for the economic prosperity of the people who live in the city.

After 21 years of farming, were the hell are my millions? Seems your dislike for Mr Bowersox has left your judgement criminally impaired. Next time you get the urge to start the thread, try it w/some FACTS!!!!!!

Hey, I'm no expert on sprawl, but I know that the North Prospect shopping area is one of the ugliest places I have seen. I don't think commercial development has to be that way. Cities have a right to regulate how development advances, don't you think? I've seen development in places like Hilton Head, SC where stores have to be built to fit in with existing architecture and unlimited concrete parking is not allowed. I think cities and people living in them should try to envision and regulate how they want their cities to grow and how they can do it in ways that encourage environmental care, fuel conservation, economic vitality, esthetic appeal, etc.

RSW, I think you did a good job summarizing the arguments on both sides. I'm going to come down more on the side of maximizing benefits for all (that it is easier and less expensive to provide better services to a compact population than a scattered population). But landowners' rights and lifestyle preferences do deserve consideration.

One problem with the septic-systems-and-wells argument (not needing to extend water and sewer to rural properties) is that both septic systems and wells are problematic in large numbers. A few of them here and there are within the ability of the land to support at minimal risk, but each new septic system and well increases the risk of sanitation problems and drinking water contamination. So there are reasons to discourage development "off the grid" in this regard.

If encouraging efficient use of tax dollars and public resources is "liberal" than that must be what I am.

So we are discussing making it harder for Christie to move into more efficient and better planned buildings. Those buildings will probably have greater more advanced technology for heating and Air conditioning which would be more energy efficient. We wonder why Health Care (or any business) is so expensive when we make it so hard for them to do business. It will also create jobs to build the building and tax revenue which will help pay for the local governmental costs of services to the area.

Why is it that people think they should decide for everyone else how they should live? Do some of you think I should be forced to live in an apartment? If you want to live in an apartment that's fine go ahead do so. Is it the governments role to decide my housing?

I posted this on Friday night, then shut off my P.C. - I thought it might attract a little discussion.

Wenalway wrote: "The point you conveniently overlook is there are any number of areas that are already developed in Champaign-Urbana where Christie could have moved." I didn't conveniently overlook anything. I rationally assume Christie considered the pros and cons of numerous locations - cost, parking, customer convenience, etc. They came to a conclusion, and made a decision that benefited the seller of the land, the buyer of their land, and their business. Who are you to tell them that is wrong?

Lazlo, thank you as always for a reasoned and thoughtful response. But in your "efficient use of tax dollars" defense, you didn't address the cost of the tram system. This is the dream of the mass transit crowd, and has some advocates on the city councils. Once you get a sufficient number of people jammed downtown, with no where to park cars or roads to crowded to really drive on, what alternative do you have?

Big Pappa Pump, there are millions going out in farm subsidies "to protect the family farmer". Of course, most stats I have read say the biggest majority of this money is going to big corporate farms, so I wonder what the point really is. Maybe you could sell your land to a housing developer and make your millions that way?

And also let me add, I have no dislike for Mr. Bowersox. I disagree with his position, and have stated why. Public debate, don't you know.

I am heartened to see no one sticking up for the "protecting the farmland" argument - but I would expect to hear from that group once the work week resumes Monday.

Wen, O/K were in either city is a place for them to put a new campus for their business? This is a serious question.

Ammonium, I think the question is where Christie is suppose to move that would fit their requirements for future growth within the two cities?

With CF mall you'd have to boot out what few merchants are there and probably raze the building and the build according to need. That may or may not be possible depending on what contrators think they could do with the building.
Before the former Kmart property was sold I would have gone with that, but now there is no room along that corridor unless you go past Windsor and build in that corn/bean field, but i guess you were probably trying to avoid that.
The plot that abandoned factory sits on is about the same size the current Christie sits on. Besides, you would have to raze the factory since it not useful.
I'm curious where along e university you can build, and where along Anthony drive?

# run4cvrlib Says:
August 5th, 2006 at 10:41 am

I think you really have a problem Anon. or Not Moving or what ever your name is this time.

Nice response.

My problem, really it's your problem, is that I don't suffer fools lightly. If you don't know what that means, I am not surprised, Jim.

By the way, how did you do in the school board race when you ran? Who beat you, someone even more conservative than you? I don't think so.

Run4:

Um, hate to break this, but the reason I suggested those sites was because there is already development there. That's the whole point -- replacing unused or underused development with useful development.

I would be really surprised if there isn't 25 acres of usable space at any of those sites. And yeah, there are problems with razing buildings. But those would be offset with existing infrastructure. Bus lines would already go to those areas. I guess Christie doesn't really care if its patients can get to the facility or not.

But I don't think any of these sites were given serious consideration, unless I missed something along the line. All of a sudden, the plan was before the city council. I guess the lesson here is for the public to monitor zoning agendas very closely so they aren't ambushed with boondoggles like this one.

Really what needs to happen is quite simple: The whole thing needs to go back for discussion, which is what should have happened to start with. If the city council members in place can't find a way to develop where there's infrastructure, I'll have no problem voting against them every time they run.

That's "other people's property". It's fun to criticize people and companies for the decisions they make with their own money and their own property. Instead of CEO's, every company should be overseen by an urban planner - someone who can make decisions for the public good. After all, we are all affected by the decisions of private property owners.

China prevents sprawl by requiring people to get permission from the government to move to another city. Oh wait... that's actually to stop people from moving INTO the big cities. Somebody should send them an urban planner.

Lazlo, thank you as always for a reasoned and thoughtful response. But in your “efficient use of tax dollars” defense, you didn't address the cost of the tram system. This is the dream of the mass transit crowd, and has some advocates on the city councils. Once you get a sufficient number of people jammed downtown, with no where to park cars or roads to crowded to really drive on, what alternative do you have?

I didn't address the cost of the tram system because we don't need a tram system, and pigs will fly before we build a tram system (with the possible exception of a single loop around campus, funded largely or entirely by the UI, which is the only place in town where transit demand remotely approaches that required to justify a tram system).

Your argument is reductio ad absurdum. Downtown Champaign or Urbana is never going to be packed with skyscrapers. At most, we might see a few more buildings like One Main (which has its own parking, by the way) and some more commercial amenities to serve the people who live there. Even the most aggressive "anti-spawl" measure that has ever been discussed in Champaign County--using zoning to restrict the development of rural residential subdivisions--is exceedingly unlikely to turn downtown Champaign into Manhattan within our great-grandchildren's lifetimes.

I enjoyed Bowersox's part where he mentioned how fat kids are getting because they don't walk to school anymore (case against sprawl). Can you say, Concent Decree?

RSW, I realize I should have mentioned another point in my response to your tram question. Compact development generally decreases, rather than increases, the cost of mass transit. Even those who think college students are second-class citizens unworthy of mass transit can usually be convinced that Grandma is better off riding the bus to the bingo parlor than either sitting at home rotting, or taking her chances behind the wheel. As the population ages, the demand for mass transportation for the too-old-to-drive is only going to increase. Whether it's a plane, train, subway, tram, bus, subsized cab fares, or even privately-operated services (the shuttle from the retirement home), operating costs per ride increase proportional the area being served. Today's young families buying homes at the periphery to hide from the "killer buses" and MTD tax levy are tomorrow's elderly demanding mass transit.

I should also say that I have no issue with Christie. They're out of space downtown, they can't expand there, and I doubt it was easy to find a suitable infill site. Wenalway has a good list (except for #4--what sites are available on University east of Five Points?) but i don't think any of those locations have 25 acres of available space, even without regard to any other site selection criteria Christie may have. Finally, does Christie pay property taxes? If not, some would say they ought to be somewhere where they're not tying up prime downtown real estate that could be increasing the tax base.

The current way of funding transit agencies seems to result in all sorts of bizarre distortions, like transit agencies providing services which nobody wants (evidence: empty buses), making foolish use of money (evidence: MTD's building [expensive overkiil], custom kitchen, donations to WILL (?), etc.), and so on.

What if fed funding of transit agencies was based on some sort of a matching concept, as in, we'll match your revenue dollar for dollar? In that case, the transit agency would, sort of by definition, have a 50% farebox recovery ratio. Or fed could provide two dollars per farebox dollar. Or any other ratio. Revenue-based subsidies would cause transit agencies to figure out the best way to attract and serve riders (marketing, routing, operations) in a cost-effective way.

Depending on the level of the subsidy, I suspect we'd never hear anything about service to low-density areas ever again. MTD would probably have no interest in going to SW Champaign, because the cost per bus mile or bus hour would easily overwhelm farebox x 2 or farebox x 3 or maybe even farebox x 4.

MTD would have to run their menagerie like an actual business.

Also, such a funding method would presumably facilitate entry by private operators, who may be able to provide service at a lower cost. Let's say that federales decide that it makes sense to provide bus service to rural areas (philo, tolono, villa grove, etc.). They throw out an RFP: "Seeking operators to provide thrice-daily service to using . FTA will pay successful operator $n per passenger during year one. Please submit a proposal which includes routes, stops, fares (adult, student, senior) blah blah blah"

Instead of MTD being the default provider, the incumbent provider, anyone with an interest in transportation could bid - perhaps subject to school bus-style performance bonds. While there would undoubtedly be a few problems with inexperienced operators failing and having operational difficulties, the market should solve most problems. Think about it. If the operator is totally unreliable, he fails to attract riders, doesn't receive fare-matching from federales, and fails. Federales bid out the service again, and new bidders adjust their bids - asking for more funding per rider. In the end, though, I believe the marked would equilibrate at a place where the commercial operators have a lower cost structure than public transit agencies that receive subsidies not tied to farebox revenues.

Consider this: private bus companies typically have much more modest facilities than transit agencies. Private operators also tend to have a mixture of new and old buses. Why? Because private operators tend to spend money on things which the market demands. If the market doesn't demand (isn't willing to pay for) all new, matching buses, the private operator won't buy them.

MTD recently (a couple years ago) bragged that they'd just bought a bunch of new buses and now their entire fleet matches. I concede that there are economies of scale to be had when all buses are the same, but that's not what they were bragging about. They were bragging that all their buses match. Is this something which is important to taxpayers? Are you willing to pay a couple cents more in taxes to have matching buses? Are riders willing to pay a couple more cents or have lower frequency in order to have matching buses? Probably not. Would a private operator replace a couple of serviceable older buses with new $400,000 rigs just so they could have a matching fleet? Probably not. Illini-Swallow tried to follow that path. They leased about 40 new buses in 1998-2000 and dumped all of their non-brand-new equipment. Do you know how that turned out? Chapter 11 -> Chapter 7 -> gone!

A revenue-matching system would also prevent providers from "buying" riders. One of David Gunn's big moves at Amtrak was to slash fares. Whether or not it increased profitability, it gave Gunn more political power. Would you rather go to congress with 3 million riders or 6 million riders? A matching system of funding public transportation would mitigate rider-buying.

Ok, I'm bored with this. Time to do something else. I won't be responding to the one or two crackpots who seem to follow me around.

how is mtd funded if it's not based on ridership? i know, i know, property taxes. but besides that. how else are they funded?

Interloper:

Sadly, I'll have to disagree. I think there are a lot of people in the community who don't care about making it better, just keeping everything exactly the same.

Yeah, though many of us play one on the internet, I don't think anyone here is the type of person who would like to see the abandonment of all government programs. Or on the flipside, the disbandment of all giant corporations.

What we should be able to agree on is that there is widespread inefficiency in BOTH business and government and we must be vigilant as a people beyond, "I see, I buy" or "I see, I vote" so that we can improve our society.

A public transit program that is responsive to the needs of the people benefits the vast majority of people in the community in myriad ways, including those who exclusively drive.

A public transit program that is unresponsive to people's needs will gradually become less and less beneficial and become a drain on the community.

What I would like to see from MTD:
1. More consistency on scheduling and routes. In Chicago, there is nowhere you can stand and be more than 3-4 blocks from a bus line. There is no time of day where you would have to wait more than a half-hour for a bus, and that's if you literally just missed the previous one. During the day, we are talking a max of a ten-minute wait.

I haven't rode since I moved, but when I was down there, the main problem was the need to study routes in order to know where and when you could catch a bus. Most of us can do that, but to make that a condition for ridership is likely to reduce ridership.

2. Better outreach to youth. I went to two schools during the fifth grade and had to take the MTD between them. I quickly befriended my driver and really incorporated MTD into my lifestyle. But most kids do not have that opportunity. Why not work to encourage more kids to take the bus? I imagine a lot of overworked soccer moms and dads would appreciate the break.

3. Better discout plans for regular riders. The year/seasonal passes are too large blocks. Why not have monthly passes and chargeable account cards with percentage discounts as well? That way people who don't ride the bus daily will still be able to benefit from frequent riding?

4. Better transfer policies. In Chicago, I can ride from one end of the city to the other and back on a transfer for $2.00 or the equivalent of $1.80 with a account card. Why do I need to pay $2.00 to ride to a close location and back in Champaign-Urbana?

5. Better communication with the community. These are just some suggestions from someone who DOESN'T live in the community. I imagine those who do have better suggestions. In fact, if you have the time, it would be interesting to see what every would require from MTD before they rode it. The MTD needs to spread information about itself better without seeming like it's trying to fool people. If it's worth having, it should be able to articulate real advantages that each person in the community could attain without crazy spin.

Thanks. Oh, and apologies for the horrid grammar in the post above. I was on the phone while typing it, so it's even worse than usual...

Newly Annexed: are you arguing for Urban Growth Boundaries? because that's what it sounds like. I can't say I disagree with you, it would make all the dead commercial space in the middle of town worth developing. Hell, maybe we would even get someone to move into all the empty spaces in the upper stories of our downtown buildings. But I think we could create incentives for people to develop infill sites without imposing anything as authoritarian as an urban growth boundary.

In general: I can understand how a lot of people have this knee-jerk reaction that sprawl is a good thing and anyone who argues against it is a freedom-hating communist. After all, this country has a history of unlimited expansion. But for the mostpart that expansion has been subsidized by the government with highways and FHA mortgages and the like.

But there comes a point in a city's growth (and for this purpose Champaign-Urbana is effectively one medium sized city) that continual expansion grows too expensive. Infrastructure and services are a large part of that cost that are bourne by the taxpayers. Users of the clinic now have to drive even farther to get their flu shots. I don't mind if some soccer mom and her family move out to the latest subdivision, they can afford the gas. But many of the clinic's patients can't afford to drive as often, and Christie is now increasing our dependence on foreign oil. And all the poor people without cars who could previously walk to the clinic have to take the bus. I know how much it irks the posters on this board to see people actually using mass transit, so that in itself should be reason enough to oppose the clinic's migration.

As far as preserving farmland goes, I will stick up for it. The less local farmland we have, the more we have to rely on corn grown in the middle east and strawberries from South America. So not only are we increasing profits for oil companies by shipping our food halfway around the world, but we are subsidizing foreign countries whose ideologies we may disagree with.

But hey, why should we take these things into consideration? After all, there are profits to be made. And pursuit of profit is our definitive ideological characteristic.

Why do people assume that those of us who are critical of the MTD don't want to make the City a better place to live? Funds that go to the MTD or any government entity that are squndered are funds that aren't available for other programs or to be given to government agencies that actually spend their money wisely; and I include the tram in the squandered category.

This is all silly. If it is economically viable to buy a lot downtown and build, or buy a building on a lot and occupy it, or knock it down and build a new building, it will be done.

If it is economically viable to build on the outskirts, it will be done.

It is, and should be, strictly an economic decision. "Urban renewal" and 'building out" can both be done. It's all about the dollars, and I don't think do-gooders either way should have a say about it.

"But in your “efficient use of tax dollars” defense, you didn't address the cost of the tram system. This is the dream of the mass transit crowd, and has some advocates on the city councils. Once you get a sufficient number of people jammed downtown, with no where to park cars or roads to crowded to really drive on, what alternative do you have?"

Far better to keep mass transit concentrated in the city than encourage MTD to sprawl services everywhere across the entire County (except that new MTD district).

BTW, if CU wants in on a Chicago olympics, high capacity mass transit is critical to olympic committee selection.

The problem for farmland is that its real value won't be felt for another decade, as peak oil and growing world demand continue to raise oil prices.

If you converted all the grain produced in the US into ethanol, it would only provide 16 percent of our nation's fuel needs. That's a tiny dent in our dependence on foreign oil. It's estimated that if all the current biofuel plants now planned are actually built, we'll use up nearly all our current grain harvest. Cellulose ethanol made from switchgrass (instead of less efficient corn) would help improve the numbers, but the technology is about five years from commercialization (ie not economical enough with current oil prices) and you can't eat swithgrass directly.

Distiller's grain is a byproduct of ethanol, but it's only 1/3 of the original grain, so that doesn't leave much food for people or feeding animals. Lots of developing nations depend on us for basic grain supplies, but at the end of this year, world wheat reserves will be at an all-time low. Unfortunately, we now import more food (think Walmart produce from the far ends of the globe) than we export (mostly grain commodities).

The markets are starting to reflect this reality, but too few people are aware of the looming big picture choice between food or fuel. You could let the markets decide, but starving, desparate people will fight for survival any way they can. If you think terrorism is bad now, just wait till you add hunger to give the religous zealots more ammunition against capitalism. Most countries have farm subsidies precisely because running out of food can get very ugly very fast, quickly ending lawful and civil behavior as people will fight hard to get food.

While we won't starve, we will see the price of meat skyrocket, especially beef. Beef is the most inefficient to produce from grain because a big mass of cells requires more energy just to function, let alone grow. Fish are very efficient at converting grain to meat, so aquaculture makes a lot more sense to those not willing to go vegetarian but not rich enough for beef.

The solution is plug-in flex-fuel hybrids, which run almost entirely on electricity for regular daily use. Why? Because the cost of electricity to drive equates to less than $1 per gallon and you will never see oil or biofuel prices that low again. Wind turbines work very well with batteries, so stronger night winds can charge your car. Toyota recently announced plug-in hybrids, well ahead of lethargic GM and Ford, which should fire their planning departments for ignoring the future.

"And the boundary of the CUMTD district should have no bearing on efforts by city and county governments to control, encourage and/or punish development on the “outskirts”. These people don't want service now - let the mass transit stay in the concentrated downtown."

If the city keeps expanding its boundry, utilities, and services, then MTD will feel obliged to follow, especially if that's where all the services people need/want have moved.

"I remembered some “chartered” trains bringing Bears fans down for games - is that good enough?"

Amtrak can probably get them to Champaign ok, but they still need to get from the train depot to the venue. That would depend on the sport. If we host tennis the crowds might be handled by the existing MTD. If it's soccer or some other hugely popular event we'd definately need a tram to handle the masses of fans.

Transportation is one of four critical factors in olympic decisions, with faciilities, public support, and general aesthetics being the other key elements.

For 2016, the US is narrowed down to LA, San Fran, and Chicago. Chicago's biggest selling point was top notch public transport, especially compared to gridlocked LA. But LA has the facilities from two prior olympics, and San Fran/CA has a better world aestetic appeal. New York's bid for 2012 died when the state legislature split between the city and the rest of the state over whether to build a stadium, which is a big risk for IL.

If the building is within 1.5 miles of the city boundry, then the city calls the shots on development and infrastructure and is very likely to annex for tax advantages.

The problem is not building out in the sticks, it's deliberately building just outside of the boundaries to avoid taxes, while still reaping the benefits of proximity to customers and services.

The question is whether the developers pay the full costs of extending utilities and services or if it gets subsidized by taxpayers. Impact fees have certainly helped address the problem, but who knows if they really cover lifetime costs, including future replacement if the developer is avoiding various taxes.

The reason most development occurs on undeveloped land on the fringes is because our current ordinance and policy structure makes this development more predictable and profitable than infill or redevelopment. The cities and the county will have to work together to provide more fairness and predictability for developers who want to redevelop or build on vacant property in the urban area. Many times when developers want to do redevelop/infill they face opposition from the neighborhood because of the lack of design guidelines that would make the infill/redevelopment fit into the existing neighborhood and minimize any negative impacts on the neighborhood. If these issues are addressed on a communitywide basis it will increase the amount of infill/redevelopment in relation to the fringe development.

Low density, single-use, auto-dependent development is by far the most expensive type of development for municipalities and schools to serve. This is an easily established fact if you take a look at any fiscal impact analysis. Farmland is usually the most profitable category of land use for cities to service because it really does not require any service and yet pays taxes. This is not an argument against residential development, this is just to point out what actual the costs and benefits of various types of development. If you are curious about fiscal impact analysis take a look at these websites: http://extension.unh.edu/CommDev/articles/FAnalysis.pdf
www.tischlerbise.com

Also, transit service is very cost efficient. If we calculate the actual costs of driving and how much we as tax payers are subsidizing single occupancy vehicles being driven on our streets the cost is many times greater than the cost of transit service. Also, transit service provides mobility to children, the elderly, the disabled and those who cannot afford to own and operate vehicles.

It seems unfortunate that so many people here do not realize how incredibly fortunate we are to have such great transit service. I believe the developers who spoke in front of the Village of Savoy Board of Trustees last week said it best when they said the transit service here is superior to most of the communities in which they develop. It is an amenity that attracts developers and residents to the community that most communities our size do not have. We should be bragging on its services instead of denigrating it.

"They do this for only one reason, the property tax revenue. There is no service provided here””-it is a PLAIN MONEY GRAB.

The CU MTD is not providing the service this community needs. When are people going to admit it and do something about it?"

So Mark, you are saying that statements like the ones above are not denigrating the MTD? It does not appear that those who are criticizing the MTD think it is an asset and they say in no uncertain terms they do not want any service.

Regarding Chicago, I was also there this weekend and I was glad to get home. I am especially glad to get out of the horrible sprawl of Chicago. The congestion in the suburbs is horrible and worse per capita than in the urban core. If you compare crime or any other number of issues on a per capita basis the suburbs are not a panacea.

That said, I do not want to live in Chicago and we are not talking about building Chicago, we are talking about giving developers the choice of where they develop and allowing them to make a profit. It has nothing to do with bias by planners it has to do with market forces and leveling the playing field for development. It is about giving people choices of where and how they want to live. Most of the development in this community is either fringe single family or university student apartments. People who would like to live in a condo in town don't have many options. If we make it easier for developers to build a variety of housing in a variety of locations, including the fringe, then we have more choice and a more attractive community.

If you like living in sprawl I have no doubt that you will have hundreds of choices of locations for many years to come. I am only asking that for those who would like something different that we give other options a fair shot.

Question: How are all those commuters living in towns out in the county going to get to work and back when gas goes up another few dollars? A County Transportation District, perhaps based on MTD might be be a good solution???

"Do you really think people are building/moving into $300,000 to $1,000,000 are big users of the MTD? I would bet money that 99% of those residents would prefer not to have the noise from the buses on their streets, regardless of whether they are paying the MTD tax or not. Mass transit may be efficient in general, but running these buses to the affluent subdivisions on the edges of town is just plain wasteful."

This area of town has a large number of multi-family units coming online in the near future. It will not continue to be an exclusive, wealthy, white enclave, it will become more diverse and many of the new residents and commercial establishments will want and need transit.

This is all dumb. Chicago has buses everywhere running all the time because that is the only way many people can get around. Build mass transit for the need of it otherwise its worthless and wastefull.

I ride the Metra everyday to downtown because it is illogical and much more expensive to drive. Metra has to meet a 50% recovery ratio, which it does.

Simply put, if the Metra wasn't around I simply wouldn't get a job in the city, I would find one closer and drive. In no way are you going to stop sprawl. You try, property prices/taxes go up, people/business move out thus invalidating the point of stopping sprawl. If you don't play nice with sprawl your city stagnates.

I am not saying sprawl should be encouraged, but simply let development occur naturally and the need then appears.

"How are all those commuters living in towns out in the county going to get to work and back when gas goes up another few dollars?"

They'll buy plug-in hybrids with more powerful batteries and use electricity that currently costs less than $1 per gallon. Even if higher electric demand increases the cost to $2/gallon, it's still a bargain compared to oil or biofuels, which are also unlikely to get cheaper.

Lazlo, the planners work closely with the developers. If you don't think that the planners tell them what the City wants to see and what the City is encouraging, then you're dreaming.