Crosscreek’s biggest mistake is destruction
By KEN MIDKIFF
Published Friday, March 14, 2008
(http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/mar/20080314comm001.asp)

Two weeks ago, on the evening of March 3, the Columbia City Council finally reached a decision on the attempts of the Stadium 63 developers to obtain approval of a plan for their Crosscreek real estate project. The new plan would have allowed a previously excluded use -an automobile dealership - among some other minor and not-so-minor changes.

Ultimately, the decision on the new plan was to reject it, but not until after almost nine hours of public comments and debate by the council.

The automobile dealership was the most controversial aspect of the new plan, and arguments will continue about whether a car lot was appropriate for this area. But when all was said and done, the neighbors - both as individuals and as represented by neighborhood associations - were in absolute opposition. They claimed the developers were trying to undo an agreement previously made and were nothing but a bunch of greedy liars.

The developers claimed, on the other hand, that attempts to negotiate with the associations had failed. Any efforts they had made were rebuffed. The neighborhood associations had failed to negotiate in good faith and were a bunch of hardheads.

Consequently, the matter ended up before the city council. The final result was similar to that reached earlier by the Planning and Zoning Commission - a split decision to reject the new plan. Those who had been opposed from the beginning - Barbara Hoppe, Karl Skala and Jerry Wade - voted "no." Joining them, because of her stated confusion, was Almeta Crayton. Laura Nauser, never having met a development that she didn’t like, voted "yes." Mayor Darwin Hindman and Chris Janku, for reasons of their own, also got to "yes." But the vote was 3-4, with those in the majority voting "no."

Underlying all this controversy and confusion were the unfortunate actions by the developers from the get-go. With a land disturbance permit firmly in hand, they ordered the bulldozers and earthmovers into action. Trees were ripped out and burned, the ground was scraped and then dirt was moved from "up there to down there." Thousands of people passing by on Highway 63 watched in dismay and disgust as the area was converted from a steep and pleasant woodland to a level mud patch.

That was the real, underlying issue behind the rejection of the new plan. An automobile dealership - complete with a used-car display area, service department and all the other aspects - would have merely added insult to injury.

The injury had been accomplished about two years ago. A mature hardwood forest had been demolished for a very speculative fistful of dollars.

That is what needs to be addressed. Does land ownership imply the owner can do anything with the land? Does the Public Works Department hand out land disturbance permits on a "first-come, first-served" basis without consideration for anything?

There can and should be a continuing debate about what is right for the area now called Crosscreek. One thing that cannot be debated is whether the highest and best use is what was. A mature forest cannot be replaced.

Should we allow landowners to obtain land disturbance permits and destroy all natural features? The current answer is "yes."