Loading...

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Peg commented:

"ok, i have to wonder how people would react if the developer was coming in to put a livestock sale barn in next door to a national shrine. i am not promoting the apartments but this shrine argument loses credibility when one realizes what's been there for decades."

Aubrey James Shepherd replies:
In 1867, that cemetery was built OUTSIDE the city with farm land surrounding it. Cattle surely grazed there from the beginning. They probably grazed inside the cemetery for some years before a significant fence was ever installed. Didn't require mowing! People visited the cemetery afoot, on horseback or in a horsedrawn carriage or wagon.
When the sale barn was built in 1936, many people still used such transportation. I grew up in the 1940s in Shreveport and remember that mules pulled garbage wagons through WWII!
The house I live in only 2 blocks from cemetery property was adjacent to a dairy farm in the 1930s. And there were no buildings between the sale barn and cemetery and my house as late as the 1940s or 50s. Those cattle grazed all over the area freely well into the 20th century every day of the year. Almost no cattle are at the barn all week long now. Wednesday and Thursday are the sale days. There is NO FEED-LOT operation there.
Certainly, few would advocate bringing a sale barn near the center of the city now. But the sale barn is a true historic site in its own right. It is a part of the agricultural heritage; and losing it will cause inconvenience and extra expense to dairy and beef-cattle producers. It will encourage the selling of grazing land and the most likely next use will be SPRAWL

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Everyone needs to get off the argument that it should be sold to the cemetery, which does not have the money to purchase it. This is not a legitimate reason to not rezone the property.

You need to be focused on reasons not to - Campus Crest was defeated in Conway by traffic issues and safety - real and relevant reasons not to rezone property.

Also, environmental considerations should be met - the cattle run through the sale barn were expeosed to arsenic for dipping - enviro reports should be required to be made public to ensure there is no danger in converting this to residential use.

What about utilities? There is no way that the utilities at a cemetary and barn are sufficient for 500 kids apartments. Who is going to pay for all of these utilities? Whose property will these extensions run through? What is the environmental impact?

What about stormwater? The impervious cover will increase 100x - how is this to be handles without negatively affecting the area?

As regards the cemetery - what about a zoning text amendment to state that a certain level of density cannot be built within so many yards of a national park, shrine, or cemetery? The apartment proposal could be tabled long enough for this procedural method of zoning change to be implemented.

Has anyone gotten statements from cemetery owners that are next to kids apartments about all of the havoc they wreak on the place - that's just a few phone calls to be made.

Think people - this is the day that will live in infamy - if you do not stop this property from being developed today, it will be lost forever!

Anonymous said...

Conway was defeated, but they came back with another proposal and now it is being built as I write this. due to open for fall 2009 term. Thanks for the ideas. we will use.