In different times, a vote like last Tuesday's in the Fayetteville City Council might have sent a grandmother scurrying up a tree, refusing to come down, in protest. Trust us, newcomers, it really happened once upon a time.
But times, and attitudes, change, as does the context of the issues debated in a community. Fayetteville is a city whose leaders have dedicated public policy to the avoidance of suburban sprawl, to providing houses people can afford and to viewing infill development as a desirable outcome. When such parameters are set, the City Council's vote on the Markham Hill project was hardly a shock.
What’s the point?
A now-approved development plan for Fayetteville’s Markham Hill reflects a desirable balance between private property owner needs and the city’s vision for the future.
That it was unanimous certainly might have amazed a few folks. When the council chambers benches get filled up with people who oppose a measure, its not unusual to see a council member or two peel off from the pack to cast a vote in opposition to the majority. But not this time. The Fayetteville City County unanimously approved zoning changes necessary to breathe life into a commercial and residential development plan by Specialized Real Estate.
The company acquired 144 acres atop Markham Hill, just west of Reynolds Razorback Stadium, two years ago. That it had not already been developed, based on location, was remarkable. For more than 100 years, the acreage was in the care of a family who appreciated its natural beauty and, once upon a time, used it for summer camps and more lately as an event venue and hotel on a small portion of the land.
Things changed, however. Bankruptcy tends to provoke change.
Specialized Real Estate leapt at the chance to acquire desirable property. That's what developers do. That these 144 acres is desirable property -- beautiful terrain, close to the University of Arkansas, natural features -- is beyond debating. Indeed, it's that very desirability that created the contentious debate within the community about what its future should be.
Some wanted to see it kept as a nature preserve. Others asked why anything needed to change at all.
There's no compelling answer, other than time and circumstances change, and private property owners get to pursue their ideas for what to do with land they've invested their money into.
And cities -- all of them -- want and need development. In growing Northwest Arkansas, our towns can either add housing or watch as the price/rents of available housing stock grow more quickly than it otherwise does. With the city's commitment not to spread its borders -- a move that would require spending millions on extending utilities and roads -- pressure grows on un- or under-developed areas within the city's borders.
Some will decry that, noting that once natural space is gone, it's gone forever. Who can argue the point? But Fayetteville does deserve credit for the preservation of natural areas it has already committed resources to. Yet, as a municipality trying to manage development and promote fair and affordable housing, it can hardly preserve all the places of nature within its borders.
From what we've seen of the Specialized Real Estate proposal, the plan will preserve a great deal of space and develop the rest of the property with respect for the surroundings. It seems the Fayetteville City Council, rather than concentrating on what would be lost, focused instead on what the city could gain: new homes, restaurant and commercial space, hotel accommodations, and preserved natural space totaling about 60 acres in a way that keeps it preserved forever.
"Instead of littering the entire hillside -- the most ecologically sensitive and significant portion -- with single-family homes, they want to preserve that and move the development to the previously disturbed top of the mountain," council member Sarah Marsh said. "That in itself is a win for the environment."
The proposal represents serious change. But it's not a scorched earth approach to development. It's exactly the kind of reasonable development many in city leadership have pined for.
Commentary on 10/07/2018