IS IT TRUE December 11, 2012

1. So let me get this straight, the Council’s lone REPUBLICAN said this about allowing a Doctor to practice in his own home, “…the strongest opponent of this request was Councilman Dan McGinn who stated that part of his job is to keep the government from doing bad things to people?”

   What sort of Twilight Zone are we living in. Can Republicans agree this is not what being conservative means? What a major facepalm moment. It’s no wonder our Party is relegated to the gutter of Evansville’s political life. No one in our Party seems to give a damn about principle.

   Absolutely, the doctor should be able to practice in his home. Hell, if it were up to me, he wouldn’t even require a government license to practice! That’s part of what drives up our medical costs to begin with.

   • Regarding the retiring doctor. He’s not going to be in that home forever. He’s going to die one day. Or he’s going to move one day. And the next owner of the home may be Larry Flynt himself. And under the rezoning Larry Flynt the new owner can put in an adult book store in that home, next to good Christian god-fearing people who have $300,000+ homes. Those neighbors’ home values would plummet. This was a good decision by the city council. Let the good doctor rent an office at one of the nearby strip malls. They’re less than a mile away. Rather than have him change zoning on his mansion and allow a smut peddler to move in there 3 years from now. This was a decision TO PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS’ RIGHTS. They moved into these expensive homes when the neighborhood was zoned residential. Not commercial.

     • That’s why the APC encourages use and development commitments, whereby in this case, all future use of the property, if rezoned, could be restricted to professional medical uses only, and to the 2000 square foot area subject of the rezoning.

   • Government licensing does not cause costs to go up.
     Paying pharmaceutical reps $200,000 per year to sell drugs that should cost $2 but end up costing us $500 is the problem.

     • Zoning could easily be changed back upon death of the Doctor. The irrational fears of a “smut peddler” are laughable. A despicable Larry Flint-type person could move next door regardless whether or not he’s selling his smut out of his house. Thank God in America no one has yet found a legal way to stop him.

       As for doctor licensing, that along with a system in which third party payers are endemic are part of a cocktail of reasons healthcare is so high.

       Milton Friedman was an avid opponent of medical licensure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw

       • By the way, if the neighborhood all got together to request zoning their area Residential-Commercial, that is to allow a small business to operate within an otherwise residential structure, their property values, I would argue, would actually climb, not deflate. This would give any prospective buyers more flexibility in how they used the property. This could attract more investment in the area.

         • You are CLUELESS!!!!!!!

         • …and you are a nameless coward taking pot shots from behind a username.

           Your argument against spot zoning goes out the window with my above argument.

         • Do your homework, or do you and Blanger just want to jerk people around (or get jerked off the float)

           Per the APC website the and the local Comprehensive Plan, see section &, Page 8, paragraph 2

           “The housing program should be comprehensive in nature and tied to neighborhood
           dynamics. Program policies should be applicable to all neighborhoods, not only those
           experiencing a high degree of deterioration. Policies should encourage preservation of
           current stock and general neighborhood character. These efforts in stabilization and
           preservation are less resource intensive than new development and will reduce the need
           for future efforts to reverse deterioration and replacement of housing. Zoning can be used
           as a means of protecting neighborhoods. Enhancing residential areas through compatible
           zoning and the ELIMINATION OF SPOT ZONING helps to preserve the character of the
           neighborhood”

           SMACK!

       • WRONG! There is no legal method to force rezoning of a property in the event of the death of the owner or that the ownership changes, and you’re an idiot for posting this. You have ZERO idea what goes into Area Plan Commission methods.

         This vote was about the proper adherence to the Area Plan Commission Comprehensive Plan, and shame on the three City Council people who voted for this farce.

         This is 100% a spot zoning issue. Spot zoning is a provision in a general zoning plan which benefits a single parcel of land by creating an allowed use for that parcel that is not allowed for the surrounding properties in the area. Because of implications of favoritism, spot zoning is not favored practice.

         Our local code states that we should NOT encourage spot zoning, and the neighbors did a good job on this one!

         • The neighborhood could, but I seriously doubt it will, organize to seek an overlay zoning that would allow say 1000 square foot area to be used for say medical profession services only and within homes on land zoned R-1.

           This essentially would be the same as the overlay zoning recently enacted as part of the Evansville Arts Redevelopment District, the overlay zoning area within which generally coincides with the Haynie’s Corner Arts District.

           Since the neighborhood in question is adjacent to St. Mary’s Hospital campus, it might seem reasonable to have a professional office overlay zoning district, but I doubt it would fly.

         • If provisions in our local zoning ordinance do not exist which will allow for a provision that zoning must be reviewed before transfer of a property to another owner, maybe it should exist.

           As is, I know of no ordinance prohibiting it. If you can point one out, it would be much appreciated. In the meantime, I’ll search for it myself as well.

         • My argument wasn’t that it would fly, or everyone would go for it…my argument was that it would increase, not decrease property values.

         • Brad, whether or not non-existent zoning provisions should exist is rendered moot by the fact that every time you open the code for revisions, all the NIMBY freaks and do-gooders will flood the chambers with petitions to impose layer upon layer of new but unnecessary regulations.

         • Interesting way to spend a morning, perusing Area Planning Commission codes. I have to thank CCO Truth Squad for sparking such a stimulating read this morning.

           The provision CCO Truth Squad says didn’t exist DOES exist.

           http://www.evansvilleapc.com/textdoc/cispecuse.pdf
           Under 15.153.133 DISCONTINUANCE OF SPECIAL USE
           (B) A special use may not be altered to become any use other than that approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
           15.153

           So, the only business that could ever be installed at that location with a Special Use permit would be a Doctor’s Office, which could not expand or fundamentally change in any way without further approval. This shoots the fears of “smut peddlers” firmly in the foot, and it probably kills any fears of property devaluation considering some people would consider such proximity of a family doctor a major plus.

           Also, interestingly I did find an identical provision to the one I suggested, but this one is regarding Art Galleries. The code under “Special Uses” specifically states:

           (N) All resident-occupied/resident operated art galleries which receive SU-44 approval shall be subject to
           the following limitations:
           (1) The resident/operator of an art gallery that receives SU-44 approval may not be varied from the
           applicant for which it is granted.

         • A “special use” is TOTALLY different from a regular rezoning! There are only around 30 “special use” classifications, and the reversion of those is due to state law, not local provisions only. So the reversion policy would NOT apply, and in many cases this is appropriate. For example, Green River Road at Eastland Mall is C-4, and every time the propert changed hands over the last 30 years it did not revert to Ag. This is the crux of the issue here! Neighbors did NOT want a commercial class that would stay there forever unless a new owner ever petitioned for a change. You cannot do this via covenant on the land that is tied to the owner, and Indiana law prevents the APC and CC from having their vote be conditional on such a provision.

           Glad to see you are looking at APC rules. They should be looked at more often by people

         • PS: A “doctors office” is NOT a “special use” classification, it is a component of a zoned area (Ag, R1-R5, CO1 – C4, M1-M3). Therefore, your argument that “the only business that could ever be installed at that location with a Special Use permit would be a Doctor’s Office, which could not expand or fundamentally change in any way without further approval” is a rant by someone clearly unfamiliar with how land-use is handled via rezoning.

           Furthermore, if you took the time to look at the APC website, you would see that “special uses” do NOT allow you to lobby for a vote ahead of time. Yes, Virginia, this is true! “Special Uses” are granted via the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), which under state law is considered a “quasi-judicial” body which cannot be contacted ahead of the vote. This is an APPOINTED board, BTW! With a regular zoning like this one, neighbors were allowed to lobby their argument via APC and City Council, and clearly their argument won. But with BZA it is a crime to contact them in advance.

           Getting a picture now, Bradly?

         • I challenge your assertion that a doctor’s office could not be considered “Special Use”…

           Here are the criteria for consideration of Special Use status:

           After public hearing, the
           Board of Zoning Appeals shall make its determination for approval, denial, or modification of the Special Use
           classification based on the following criteria:
           (1) Whether the specific site is an appropriate location for the use.
           (2) Whether the use as developed will adversely affect the surrounding area.
           (3) Whether there will be nuisance or serious hazard to vehicle, pedestrians, or residents.
           (4) Whether adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for proper operation of the use.
           (5) Whether the use is in harmony with the Evansville and Vanderburgh County Comprehensive Plan.
           (6) Whether the use is essential or desirable to the public convenience and welfare.

           Under 15.153.134 LIST OF SPECIAL USE DESIGNATIONS, see number 32: Home occupations not specifically listed in ∋15.153.04.069 (subject to the additional requirements
           listed in ∋15.153.08.132(E)

         • …and I would also challenge what you say with regard to “Special Use” not pertaining to City Planning and Zoning and “the reversion of [Special Use designations being] due to state law”.

           Not sure I really follow your line of reasoning there. The codes I have quoted are taken directly from City of Evansville Code of Ordinances. They (presumably) conform to State Law, but govern all zoning within the City of Evansville. http://www.evansvilleapc.com/cityzoning.html

           It sounds to me like you know a great deal about zoning. Either you’ve been through the process or you sit on the APC… If that’s the case, I’d like to know who you are so we can have a fair and informed debate on this issue without unnecessary mudslinging. Is it possible you simply aren’t aware of the possibility of a doctor’s office being a “special use” because you haven’t encountered it yet?

         • Brad

           Been thru process
           NOT on the Area Plan Commission or affiliates in any fashion

           Nice try, though

         • So, in conclusion, a Doctor’s Office could under 15.153.134 LIST OF SPECIAL USE DESIGNATIONS, SU#32 (Home occupations not specifically listed in ∋15.153.04.069 (subject to the additional requirements
           listed in ∋15.153.08.132(E)) be considered a “Special Use even though it is not specifically listed as a legitimate home occupation under 15.153.04.069
           (“Accountant
           Architect
           Artist
           Attorney
           Bookkeeper
           Computer services
           Consultant
           Counselor
           Draftsman
           Engineer
           Interior decorator
           Musician
           Seamstress or tailor
           Telephone order service
           Tutor”)

           because if not listed in the above list, it is merely subject to the addition requirements and provisions of 15.153.08.132(E):

           (E) In addition to all the other limitations and provisions contained in the Zoning code, S.U. 32 and S.U. 43
           shall be limited as follows:
           (1) No identifying or business sign shall be erected or placed on any site for which a S.U. 32 or S.U. 43
           has been granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
           (2) Except for the shipment and receipt of goods, products or items necessary for the S.U. 32 or S.U.
           43 the use shall not be visible from the exterior of the premises.
           (3) The maximum time for which the first S.U. 32 or S.U. 43 may be granted is two years from the date
           of approval; thereafter, a subsequent grant of a S.U. 32 or S.U. 43 for the same parcel of property for the same
           use shall be for such length of time as approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
           (4) No person or persons may be employed in the S.U. 32 or S.U. 43 home occupation at the site other
           than the resident (or residents) of the site for which the S.U. 32 or S.U. 43 has been granted.
           (5) The use may not be varied from the specified home occupation or home catering service identified
           by the applicant for which it is granted.

         • CCO Truth Squad, Unless you can argue against the above post in a reasonable manner, quoting countermanding statute, I will consider this little “debate” over.

         • Linzy

           Sigh! You are like a little child with your specious arguments.

           The simple matter is that your incorrect argument glosses over the issue of home-based businesses are not allowed to have “visitors” EXCEPT for the ones you managed to find.

           Therefore, a “doctor” is not currently considered a “home based” business in a residential area.

           Just because you think you have a few “facts” from the online APC codes and structure does NOT make you any more correct on items.

           Now it can be closed

           🙂

         • Again, you failed to rebut me in any rational way other than name-calling.

           All you’ve just proven to me and everyone else is you don’t know how to read.

         • Here’s a clue for you… Go back and read S.U. #32 again. Read it really slowly so you can understand it. Follow the other codes it cites. Then re-read what I wrote above laying it all out for you.

           Apology accepted.

       • OK, I’ll break this down into components you might understand.

         There are six criteria for a “special use”. Each must be considered.

         (1) Whether the specific site is an appropriate location for the use.

         Nope, a residential area is not an “appropriate location”. Commercial business should be in a commercial zone. That is what commercial zoning is for!

         (2) Whether the use as developed will adversely affect the surrounding area.

         Well, it sure made a good argument in front of APC (which recommended a denial 12-0) that neighboring areas would feel a negative affect! Just because a retired doctor wants to use his HOME for a BUSINESS is not pre-determined

         (3) Whether there will be nuisance or serious hazard to vehicle, pedestrians, or residents.

         Gee, simple math here! Take the residential foot and vehicle traffic and multiply that by the number of patients/visitors (drug reps)/ employees, and that will CLEARLY be a hazard and a nusiance.

         (4) Whether adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for proper operation of the use.

         This is a home, not a business.

         (5) Whether the use is in harmony with the Evansville and Vanderburgh County Comprehensive Plan.

         It is NOT (see spot zoning)

         (6) Whether the use is essential or desirable to the public convenience and welfare.

         We have hundreds or maybe thousands of available commercial buildings, many withing a few blocks of this location. There are literally MILLIONS of square footage of commercial buildings in Evansville that are open and not being used. You have utterly failed to describe how a doctor office is “essential or desirable to the public convenience and welfare” when there is so much negative to this location outweighed by all the real estate nearby that could be used.

         You get on here and just argue and copy and paste whatever passes thru your vacant head.

         I’m done with you

         • Well, maybe BZA should consider nowadays we have “reverse mortgages,” so why not allow “reverse house calls?”

         • Right off the bat, you failed utterly. The criteria you cited under 15.153.132, and I cited much earlier in this debate, is criteria to be used by the APC in making their decision. It is a guideline for the Commission to follow in the hearing! You are putting the cart before the horse here in assuming what decision they will make in a specific case without so much as hearing any testimony from an applicant!

           The fact of the matter is, you tried and failed to argue that a doctor’s office couldn’t qualify as a “Special Use” under this code. It clearly can. I showed you exactly how under Special Use #32 it’s possible. Your opinions as to whether or not it meets the specific criteria under 15.153.132 is completely immaterial because you are NOT on the APC.

         • You are a perfect example of the old adage “A LITTLE learning is a dangerous thing.”

           You THINK you know what you’re talking about. In fact, because of whatever limited experience you have in this vein, you INSIST you understand the totality of zoning law, yet you’ve barely even quoted any codes whatsoever in fashioning your argument. Then, in the absence of legitimate, rational arguments, you rely on childish insults, calling me childish for sticking to the facts and citing all my sources.

           For instance, earlier you stated: “The simple matter is that your incorrect argument glosses over the issue of home-based businesses are not allowed to have “visitors” EXCEPT for the ones you managed to find.”

           Clearly that is wrong. In fact, of all of the home occupations allowed under under 15.153.04.069 –
           (Accountant, Architect, Artist, Attorney, Bookkeeper, Computer services, Consultant, Counselor, Draftsman, Engineer, Interior decorator, Musician, Seamstress or tailor, Telephone order service, Tutor) – a large number of them MUST HAVE visitors to function. Case in point: tutor, counselor, consultant, attorney, accountant, architect, musical instructor, etc.

           Explain that one.

         • Another giant, gaping hole in your argument here is that the term “Spot Zoning,” the term upon which you hinged your argument, doesn’t even appear anywhere in the entire code.

           IT DOES NOT EXIST.

           Go on, check: http://www.evansvilleapc.com/cityzoning.html

           Explain that one while you’re at it.

         • Can’t resist one last uppercut to the jaw of your KO’d argument…

           In your first response to this post you said:

           “This is 100% a spot zoning issue. Spot zoning is a provision in a general zoning plan which benefits a single parcel of land by creating an allowed use for that parcel that is not allowed for the surrounding properties in the area. Because of implications of favoritism, spot zoning is not favored practice.”

           You later criticized me for copying and pasting parts of the actual codes in question, and while I fail to see citing my sources as a fault, the fact that you had already hypocritically copied and pasted a definition you found on freedictionary.com rather than referencing the actual Evansville Zoning Code pretty much tells the tale.

           Furthermore, your statement that “our local code states that we should NOT encourage spot zoning” is an absolute fabrication, because again, not only does the Evansville Code not mention the term “Spot Zoning” anywhere in it, but it actually provides guidelines for accommodating “Special Use” applicants, which is the closest equivalent in our code to “Spot Zoning”.

           My estimation of you has been deflated severely by this debate. You come off as someone who resorts to name-calling and is unable to accept when he’s wrong.

         • “You come off as someone who resorts to name-calling and is unable to accept when he’s wrong.”

           Or she’s wrong. 😉

           Brad, you assume your debating a rational male by your quoted statement above but after following this debate and other posts presented by the persona know as “CCO Truth Squad” I’d like to suggest that CCO Truth Squad is in fact a spoiled little girl use to getting her way.

           But it is JMHO

         • Why don’t you post your reply here where people can easily follow the debate?

           The Comprehensive Plan is NOT gospel. If it were gospel, the zoning code would simply prohibit ALL “Special Use” zoning applications. The fact is, despite a cursory mention of spot zoning in the Plan, it is not mentioned or prohibited in the actual Zoning Code; furthermore, you were thoroughly proven wrong on your assertion that a doctor’s office could not possibly be considered a “Special Use”. You still haven’t admitted you were wrong on that.

           The confusion here appears to have arose because you mistakenly referred to spot zoning as being in the “code” and it’s clearly not.

     • Not really. The reason non-generics cost so much more than they should is because Big Pharma advertises so heavily for their hard-on pills, physical enhancement potions, and incontinence medications. BTW, those overpaid drug reps also load doctors up with tons of samples that end up helping patients who cannot afford full pharmacy prices.

       • Another reason is FDA restrictions on importation of alternative drugs.

2. As for the rest of today’s Is It True… All I can do is shake my head in dismay. It’s the same old story of government officials thinking they know better than the free market when something should be built, when it should be destroyed, or when it’s right for private individuals to invest their money in a public project.

   In the process of wheeling and dealing to get some grand, centralized vision pulled off, which usually has special interests at the heart of its inception, all form of business sense and principle evaporate. All that remains is a crippled, half-formed, Frankenstein beast of government creation, in perpetual need of further government subsidy to exist. All SOUND investment predictably flees for greener pastures because the people making sound investments know they and their business are going to have to pay for the mistakes.

3. Brad…..

   There is still time for the city to pull it’s head out of it’s a$$, I’m not optimistic that they will not move forward building a hotel in fact I’m fairly confident they will flush $20-$50m down the drain because in their minds it’s what is needed for everything downtown to succeed.

   It truly defies all logic to pay for a study then go against the recommendations put forth in that study, like I said yesterday if they wanted a specific recommendation from Hunden they should have told them the results they wanted, might have cost a little more than the $70k but they could go forward without opposition because it was what was recommended….now any movement other than no hotel will make them look like the uncaring self serving fools we all know them to be.

   JMHO

4. The Epitaph for Evansville is being written by This Insane Mind Set we have in place with the Elitests Rulers of Evansville. What will it be? “WE BLEW IT ALL ON OLD DOWNTOWN!” RIP

5. Blanger and Bradley

   APC Website, Section 8, Summary. I have numbered the “Policy” section so you can follow along.

   The rezoning on Washington violates 9 out of 9 of applicable codes. And you will not the words “spot zoning” for the second time in the Comprehensive Plan (see part 6 below)

   Commercial Action Plan

   Goal

   Commercial uses that benefit the region, community, and neighborhoods through their contribution to the overall pattern of orderly development, the local economy, and how the community is perceived.

   Objectives

   Ensure efficient and appealing commercial development in the appropriate areas that minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property, the road network, and utility systems.

   Policies

   1. Support the revitalization and/or redevelopment of older Urban Core commercial areas that serve residential needs.

   2. Support actions that encourage stabilization and upgrading of existing commercial areas.

   3. Encourage only those commercial uses in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods that primarily serve neighborhood residents.

   4. Direct new commercial development into existing commercial areas prior to rezoning new land.

   5. Encourage compact commercial areas and, where possible, avoid new or expanded inefficient strip development.

   6. DISCOURAGE SPOT ZONINGS OF PROPERTY FOR HIGHER INTENSITY/VOLUME COMMERCIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

   7. Encourage small-scaled, commercial uses that primarily serve neighborhood residents at major intersections or in existing neighborhood commercial centers within residential areas.

   8. When new commercial sites are developed adjacent to residential areas, schools, churches, public parks, and the proposed greenway, encourage a landscaped buffer that exceeds the minimum setback requirements in the Zoning Code.

   9. Develop Zoning Code standards to require landscaped strips or islands as breaks within large commercial parking lots.

   10. Encourage the construction of sidewalks in commercial subdivisions.

   11. Encourage and develop incentives so that smaller retail businesses can locate and share in the redevelopment of larger vacant commercial buildings.

   SMACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   • What kind of person ends a post in “SMACK”?

     You might as well have said “CRUNCH” or “TOLD YA” or “I’m Rubber and You’re glue.”

     Again you’re intentionally posting your reply in a different area of the post so you don’t have to address my other questions.

     Like I said elsewhere higher up the page, which is where you should have replied, this is just the Comprehensive Plan, which is just a statement of policy, is NOT gospel, and has nothing to do with the actual zoning code, which are the laws that govern the actions and procedures of the APC. Therein lies your fundamental cock-up.

     • Bradly

       Calling this “just” the Comp Plan shows how ignorant on zoning you really are. ALL zoning stems from recommendations of a comp plan.

       CRUNCH

       • The comprehensive plan is a recommending document, not a policy document. Plain and simple. It’s a guidance manual, not a rules and reg. manual.

         • Thank you Bill. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. The Comprehensive Plan is like a company mission statement. It’s not a set of hard and fast rules, it’s just a guiding statement. The actual code is what governs actual decisions.

           The whole reason there are “Special Use” clauses in the actual code is because lawmakers thankfully realize there are exceptions they should consider, and cases should be heard individually. I think a special use for a neighborhood doctor’s office is a worthy thing to consider. The way I see it, the more services within walking distance of my home, the more vibrant, less vehicle dependent, my neighborhood becomes. In this economy that just makes good sense. It’s too bad the neighbors didn’t see it that way.

           I have seen a number of TED Talks on this very subject of localized services and combating the negative effects of suburbia. More “Special Use” designations and blanket Residential-Commercial areas would, with careful consideration, be a good thing.

6. I guess you people do not get out much. This house is not in some quiet neighborhood far from the noise an hubbub of society. Plus there is a “smut peddler” within walking distant. I am not sure who is being protected from what here.

7. I’m not going to argue. I am going to simply put it this way; The Council voted correctly!!!!

Comments are closed.