Residents Need Vigilance As Cities Change

Occasionally in our eff orts to live together in societies, rules have to be made to protect us from each other. Like many of the other animals with which we share this planet, humans are territorial and consequently, things can at times get tedious and tense. We like our space, and some of us need more than others to remain civil.

Living in a once-small town that is increasingly being urbanized means we are experiencing stretch marks from the growth.

However tall, wide, forested, paved, in-fi lled, sprawled, green-spaced, historic, new, clean, or polluted Fayetteville becomes, residents need to realize that changes to their town are made in both large and small ways during city council and planning commission meetings.

Because of this ongoing tweaking, all property owners could eventually see changes in land use near their homes, which can alter the value and enjoyment of their property. As with all governing entities, constant vigilance is recommended.

One local precautionary tale, which has been going on for years, is about two sets of values clashing in a neighborhood. The story began in earnest when the owner of a large tractof land in a residential/ agricultural zone built a structure, ostensibly for his horses, but which began to be used for parties.

Neighbors complained, but nothing much happened.

Then the owner decided to develop what could best be described as a boutique facility for events and overnight guests, which clearly required a zoning change.

Neighbors felt that old adage, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” rising in their gut, along with their hackles, and objected strongly. So, the landowner created what the city calls a Planned Zoning District for his project. He outlined some concessions he would make, probably to get city approvals in spite of his distrustful neighbors, who feared yet another case of “say one thing, do another,” coming down the pike at them. Promises were made of removal of old structures, limited numbers of parties per month, restrictions on hours, and buff ered boundaries of woods. So, he got his city approvals.

The jilted residents waited and very much wanted their concerns to be proved wrong.

Eight years passed, and people learned that enforcement of the agreements meant they were the ones who had to monitor and complain about noncompliance. They had to keep track of what was going on across the road, and they had to be the ones to call the authorities. As they feared, noise and traft c increased where peace and quiet had once been characteristic of their area.

Then, the landowner decided to sell part of the Planned Zoning District land he had already agreed to set aside for both visual and noise buff ering. To do so he needed to have that portion carved out to become a subdivision zone, which means his so-called buffer can be fi lled with streets, houses, fences, pets, cars, noise, and people, of course.

His neighbors objected again because, after all, the deal he made to justify his commercial businessin the middle of their neighborhood was that the facility would be isolated.

Yet, the council rewarded his behavior again, and he got his rezoning from the city. At this point, his closest neighbors again began to deeply feel “un-faired against” (as my children used to describe injustice).

What about their plans and use of their property, which they made based on his promises? Why were their rights and values ignored for someone else’s business decision?

Now this fellow wants to extend his operational hours until midnight sixnights a week instead of on weekends only. His neighbors are getting too much out-of-compliance noise with a 10 p.m. curfew now so will the City Council have them give up two more hours of their sleep for someone else’s monetary gain? And, what about the neighborhood’s value losses?

In the spirit of full disclosure, my daughter is one of these impacted neighbors, so, yes, my protective tiger mom fur is spiked.

Native Americans discovered treaties weren’t worth the paper they werewritten on, rules were made to be broken, no good deeds go unpunished, bad apples spoil the barrel, and a person is only as good as his word. In cases like this one, the integrity of our city’s treaties - its policies, ordinances, and codes - is at stake. How can we co-exist if the rules do not apply to everyone every time, if trust is lost, and if agreements mean nothing?

FRAN ALEXANDER IS A FAYETTEVILLE RESIDENT WITH A LONGSTANDING INTEREST IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND AN OPINION ON ALMOST ANYTHING ELSE.