A St. Louis area website that comments on “urban issues, the built environment, politics and policy, transportation and preservation” — nextSTL.com — on Friday came out in favor of the proposed Boland Place apartment complex, at Dale Avenue and Boland Place, in Richmond Heights.
Richmond Heights set to decide between smart development or NIMBY opposition. https://t.co/QGhQGEBWJj pic.twitter.com/ugQslAnEuS
— NEXTSTL.com (@NEXTSTL) January 29, 2016
“What a great way for the City of Richmond Heights to reaffirm its desire to turn long vacant land into new residences for new residents and loudly, again, show that it’s serious about developing Dale Avenue,” nextSTL says.
Updated below with comments from nextSTL and Derek Bolden, candidate for city council, District 2.
Among the reasons why the development is a good idea, according to the website:
- It is what was called for by a 2008 Richmond Heights land use study of Dale Avenue.
- It’s a good bulwark for Dale Avenue and the surrounding homes against Interstate 64/highway 40.
- Transitions the neighborhood from single-family homes to larger community facilities and retail to the west.
- Makes the adjacent park more safe, with more eyes on the park and more frequent users.
According to the site, opponents are expected to deliver a petition at the city council meeting on Monday that would force the city council to produce a super majority for the development to proceed. The site calls it a “best case scenario” if a super majority vote is forced, and passes. Read the full post in nextSTL.
The council meeting is Feb. 1 at 7 p.m. at The Heights, 8001 Dale Avenue.
See also: Plan for “Ritz-Carlton” grade apartments continues to raise ire in second public hearing
Derek Bolden, who lives on Boland Drive, told nextSTL on Twitter he is disappointed with their position. Bolden is running for city council, District 2.
https://twitter.com/DerekBolden/status/693220972141260800
https://twitter.com/DerekBolden/status/693224185003270144
https://twitter.com/DerekBolden/status/686663254408609792
https://twitter.com/DerekBolden/status/693513076096765953
https://twitter.com/alexihnen/status/693514804137463810
https://twitter.com/alexihnen/status/693518901209079808
Derek Bolden – You are indeed entitled to your opinion. Good policy and strong debate often emerges from a difference in opinion, however, I really question whether you would be a good candidate for city council. It seems to me that you are using the “Trump” approach in everything you say by accusing and slandering other people. Engaging in petty quarrels with individuals that you may end up representing is not becoming of a city council member. State your opinion and stick to the facts. You come across more fit for a run at school president rather than as a candidate for city council.
Also, what does more tradition, less progression even mean? You said in your tweet above that you are fed up with status quo, but you do realize that status quo is the definition of no progression. What are you exactly fed up with…..gay rights, equal housing, etc? Are these the things that are making our neighborhood less desirable to families? I think what we are seeing as a community is that you are driven by your own self interest (mainly this development) and not what is in the best interest of a community.
Kevin you are entitled to your opinion about me. However don’t insult me then expect me to try to prove a darn thing to you. Please keep voting for the same people and hope for the best. We’ll see how that works for you a few years from now.
Joe you are right but the way the cast so in favor FOR the developer was outrageous. I will say it again but that type of “pay for play” journalism isn’t really journalism at all it is advertising masquerading as editorial. There is no doubt in my mind that the developer Joe Cyr was behind this post. I think the sheer volume of illustrations/renderings all but gives it away. I hope the team at NextSTL got a nice fat check out of all of this because at least in my mind they just lost ALL credibility.
You seem to understand that NextStl likes urban builds and wants to promote more of them. You also seem to understand that this project meets a lot of the criteria that NextStl would like. Yet, you seem shocked that the article’s opinion was too much in favor of the project. I don’t get it. Why would you think that the site would be indecisive on the issue? Few articles on the site go that way. The site is not going to really like a project and then say, “eh, you decide.”
The amount of renderings and site-plans on the article is not significantly more than any other article they produce. Articles on the site are written less frequently, but much more thoroughly. I’m sure NextStl did contact Joe Cyr about the development, just like they try to contact any developer. It is just basic journalism and why I enjoy reading articles produced by NextStl. 40South has been covering the story up to this point as referenced in the start of the article so it seems that NextStl is also aware of the opinions opposing the build. Ultimately, the decision was an easy one for the site and they decided to write a piece that entailed more “play by play” because it was necessary to counter all the illegitimate concerns in their view. Your paranoia is the type of thing I see in the 40South comment section of Brentwood government articles.
Joe 40 South has been for more even handed when it has come to this story. They have not only chronicled citizen opposition but the reasons the developer has given for the project to be allowed to proceed. NextSTL just choice to report from one side and viewpoint. Alex has stated that his piece is opinion, but it is not being presented that way on his blog. There are many many people he could have reached out to to get a more balanced take on this and he chose not to. Entirely his right to be certain. However I think by taking that tact he has opens him up to the types of speculation I and others have about his motivation.
Hi Derek –
I chose to write an opinion piece on this particular development, as I’ve done time and time again on nextSTL.
Accusing me of “pay for play” absurd and I expect you to retract the accusation unless you have a copy of some check I received. In fact, if you find that check please forward it my way. I seem to not be able to find it.
This is just a sad reaction to reading something one disagrees with. There must be a conspiracy! Someone must have been paid!
Fair enough I have no evidence of “pay for play”but since you clearly are ALL In with big money interests your credibility is still up for debate. Since you brought up my candidacy, let’s talk about that because the reason I am running is so that the little guys and gals don’t get steamrollered by big monied interests OR over zealous bloggers aligned with those interests. I will not be bullied by you sir.
“…but since you clearly are ALL In with big money interests…”
Derek, it’s really pathetic that you go from apologizing for one unfounded accusation to making another and don’t even seem to realize it. And then you have the nerve to accuse Alex of “bullying” you for… what, having a different opinion than you? Expressing that opinion freely? For insisting that you retract the defamatory statements you made about him? Where EXACTLY did Alex “bully” you? Maybe you can point that out for us. I’d like his exact words and a source, please. This whole exchange suggests that you lack either the self-awareness of a grown-up or the self-restraint of one: a worrisome characteristic for a candidate either way.
Adam you are entitled to your opinion. Trying to cast the opposition to the Boland place as NIMBYs or whatever attempts to completely invalidate the many sound arguments against the development residents have raised. We are real people and the fact that he wants to lump us all into some sort of intellectually inferior group is degrading to its core (you can read all day how they poke fun of NIMBYS ). The fact that he didn’t interview, call or even tweet any of us does indeed call into question his motivations whether you or Alex like it or not.
In addition if you have been following this from the beginning like Doug and 40 South have been you would know that almost to a person residents have not had a complaint about the development itself (Doug has been to almost every meeting and can certainly vouch to this). Most residents (myself included) would like to see something on this site. The problem is and has always been the scale. I will add that lumping us in with the Clayton folks was also an unfair thing to do because they don’t want ANY development. I’ll be honest this developer’s latest round of set backs (the plan on NextSTL is actually the third revision) does address a lot of issues that were initially raised by residents. However to get this point it took a lot of fighting and only with the opposition getting serious with the petition does he do now what he should have done from the beginning and address his would-be neighbors concerns.
Let me add that speaking ones mind is always a good thing as you have demonstrated with your response. If you think though that I am going to go into a corner and cower I can tell you I am not that guy so please feel free to continue to insult me if that makes you feel better.
Derek,
Since I can’t replay to your latest comment, for some reason, I’ll reply here.
“Adam you are entitled to your opinion.”
But apparently Alex is not. Or at least not without being defamed.
“Trying to cast the opposition to the Boland place as NIMBYs or whatever attempts to completely invalidate the many sound arguments against the development residents have raised.”
It seems to me he laid out your opposition pretty matter-of-factly in the article, and not once did he call you NIMBYs either in the article or in the comments. What you can’t deal with, it seems, is that he thinks your concerns about scale are irrational and not “sound”, and that he expressed that on his popular blog. Again, I invite you to point out exactly where Alex disparaged you since you conveniently didn’t respond to that part of my previous comment.
“…you can read all day how they poke fun of NIMBYS…”
THEY is not ALEX, and he’s the one you’re attacking, specifically. And I’m sorry, but if you can’t take a little criticism without making up potentially damaging rumors about people then you might want to rethink running for office.
“If you think though that I am going to go into a corner and cower I can tell you I am not that guy so please feel free to continue to insult me if that makes you feel better.”
And here we go again with the victim card after you’re the one that lashed out at Alex. Nobody is asking you to cower in a corner. We’re asking you to debate like an adult instead of tossing around false accusations. Even if Alex HAD called you a NIMBY, that’s a far cry from a political candidate accusing someone of taking bribes or being in cahoots with “big money”. I mean, c’mon. It’s such a cliche.
Hey Adam I could sit and debate these points endlessly with you and you can cut/paste and quote me all day in response but it would be a wasted effort. Like Alex you have already made you mind up on this matter and me. Take my comments however you would like, vote for whomever you would like. Enjoy the free society we live in. Thanks.
P.S. One more thing …
Developer budget for this project = $33,000,000.00
Residents of Richmond Heights in opposition = $100 -$200.00
Anyone who follows nextStl would have easily guessed how the article would be written. The site is a strong voice of favoring friendly walkable areas via mixed use developments (preferably repurposing existing buildings in place). This checks most of the blocks that nextStl always asks for.