Gulliver Foyle, Jr. So, what you are saying is that the people that oppose this complex are NIMBY's but the people that are for it...are what? We'll just call them the developers and those that will make a significant profit off of it. You obviously weren't at the meeting on Tuesday night. There were a lot of people there that were opposed to the project that don't live in that vicinity. In fact, most of the people that were proponents of the complex don't even live in our City. So, wouldn't it be appropriate that those that live around the proposed complex, are those that have the most to lose, are one families displaying the signs in their yards to show their opposition? Sadly, I agree with you that most of the residents just don't care. I find that to be most unfortunate.
I think disgusted in pv pretty much nails it. Sure, you see a fair amount of signs, but you see very few except close to the proposed development. I live in Prairie Village and don't think the overwhelming majority of the citizens care one way or another, but those very loud NIMBYs are going to carry the day because the council will cave. If those people had their way, they would get rid of the nearby apartments, but they can't figure out a way to do so. The one thing you can say is that we don't need any more mcmansions on huge lots, but that's what the neighbors are going to end up with.
Hey Disgusted, I never said that his vote counts because it doesn't. My point is that while it may have been a legal donation, it shows that there is a "relationship" between the Mayor and the law firm that is representing the developer. I believe that it is a huge conflict of interest with an appearance of impropriety.
If the Council votes this down it is because they are representing the residents of Prairie Village and not the developer. It is the residents that voted all of the Council in to represent them and their best interest. This massive development is not in the interest of anybody but the developer who stands to make millions and millions of dollars~while inevitably costing the residents a loss of money with regard to their property values and the increase in services that will be required to handle such an enormous complex.
Hey perplexed unless its a tie vote the Mayor doesn't have a say at all in what happens here so what's your point? I can pretty much promise you with the current council it won't be a tie vote. They will pitifully cave to the loud mouths in the MVNA and kill this project and probably the next 3 that anyone attempts to propose on this site until we're stuck with redeveloping the largest vacant property in the city with 5-10 houses and all that precious green space tied up on new multi-acre lots. But that will be acceptable to the neighborhood.
Notice how no one ever mentions the apartments to the north and west of the site? MVNA could care less about the schlubs living there.
Does it matter that Mayor Ron Shaffer was the recipient of a direct contribution from the Polsinelli firm? Other mayoral candidates in other surrounding cities didn’t receive a contribution from said firm; not Lenexa, not Leawood, not Mission, not Overland Park, not Westwood, not Roeland Park. Coincidence? I think not.
PV is losing families because we are making decisions to not do things that might actually attract them. We've killed the plan to build paths or widened sidewalks through the city. The first opportunity for large re-development in years is going to go down in flames because it isn't a school and the neighborhood is still butt hurt it was closed. We've decided not to fund a community center. And there are those that are determined to make it harder to modernize the older neighborhoods in the north of the city because we shouldn't alter what JC Nichols built more than 60 years ago. If the city isn't allowed to change to meet changing needs and expectations of its citizens it will go into decline. Unfortunately we seem to be determined to kill the city in order to save it. Good luck with that.
“It’s clear to me that you don’t care or want to work with the neighborhood,” said Satterlee. “I’m supposed to be excited about five acres of usable green space. My lot is three acres. That doesn't excite me.”
This comment speaks volumes about the people opposed to this. So far they have shown zero interest in saying what they consider acceptable just taking on dump on any idea that is floated.
MVNA has distributed hundreds of signs in opposition to this project. Just drive around Prairie Village and you will see the visible opposition. However, there are others that are opposed to this massive development as well. I'm not sure what he is basing this article and observation on. Perhaps he was being sarcastic?
This isn't about the Atriums. This isn't about Lucille. This is about an oversized project that doesn't belong in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It doesn't fit with its surrounding and goes against everything that Prairie Village is about. We are losing families. That is who we should be focusing on for the future of Prairie Village.
You have to admire this NIMBY crowd, because someone has advised them to hang their hopes on the MASSIVE HUGE DENSE development idea, even though it is none of these. Nothing will make them happy except, as they admit, school, church, or park or more huge houses, that when they see the plans, they will suddenly oppose. I live in Prairie Village and can confirm, we are currently well-stocked on churches, parks, schools, and large houses, but also that is true of senor living facilities. The fact is that those in the proximity hate the idea, and most of use could care less. I just want to know who came up with the choice of the word 'massive'. I bet it is one of those people living in a massive house, as in massive is okay for them, but not this development.
The biggest problem with this development is that the neighbors don't seem to understand that this property WILL change whether they like it or not. They have already shot down the potential to build a decent retail center that would have likely improved home values (similar to the Village Shops) when they defeated the zoning change. So now this is the only viable solution. The developers invested $4.3 million dollars and they're not going to waste that on a low return on investment by turning this parcel into a public park (are you kidding me with that suggestion!), school or church. In fact, if they were to turn it into a church, you can bet that the only church that could afford to build on such land would be a mega church and would likely have a greater negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Let's face it, the neighborhood opposed to this development missed the chance to make this property into something special and now has to live with the consequences. Living in PV myself (near the Village Shops) I can tell you that from the standpoint of the city, this development represents one of the only times we can expand our tax base without actually increasing taxes. The residents in the area need to WAKE UP and start providing meaningful suggestions (building a stone/landscaped wall around property to shield their homes, placing villas on the outskirts of the property to mask the interior 3-story complex, etc...) if they want this to be successful in the end.
First of all, shame on The Pitch for its irresponsible and baseless headline. It " ... isn't getting much resistance to its plan ... "? According to whom? To Tutera, obviously. Did the reporter attend the May 7 meeting? It was full of opponents, and not just MVNA members. Unfortunately, most of the proponents left the meeting before hearing the well-prepared and eye-opening presentation about the density of the project and its impact on property values. Another important fact left out of this article: the project includes more than villas and senior living. It also includes a skilled nursing facility, which is basically a second-tier hospital for rehabilitation and recovery. Who wants that in the middle of a residential neighborhood? Plus, I feel sorry for all those who spoke in favor of the project May 7 because they wanted to retire in PV. Do we know the price point of these villas and this senior living facility? I bet most of those speakers won't be able to afford living there. Besides, the big trend in senior living is aging at home. I'm afraid PV is turning into a community of elderly residents. Nothing against old people (heck, I'm 56), but I like age diversity. A previous poster is right when he said we'll drive all the families with children south to Blue Valley and Olathe. Tutera is a devious, low-cost developer. This development is not right for Prairie Village. Period.
The problem is that the project is far out of scale with the space. Turning this much green space into parking lots and dense 3 story buildings is way out of character with the area. Something on a smaller scale would be ok, but what they are planning is HUGE. Also, the headline of this article is way off. There is significant opposition to this plan.
This is prime real estate (hence paying so much over appraised value) and Prairie Village should be happy that the Tutera group is purchasing it instead of some out of state firm that will develop it into a retail shopping center or apartment complex. Think of the alternatives; a liquor store, convenience store, restaurant, auto parts store, Wal Mart! Sure it would be nice to have it as a park or for more homes, but the reality of it is that just isn't going to happen. And if it was to happen, the houses would be so massive that people would complain about that. Just be lucky that the worst thing that will happen to neighbors is an old person "escaping" or the sound of an ambulance every once in a while.
Uhh yeah 'not tired' I do have a family connection - which I just wrote about in my post.
I wasn't speaking to the issues with the development - I could care less since I don't live in PV. It doesn't impact me. I was just agreeing with 'son' that Lucille, who runs the Atriums, is a fine woman.
Don't worry the council will cave to the NIMBY crowd. So far the only alternative anyone has proposed is more low density development with houses on 1-3 acre lots. You know while crying about the loss of green space if the school is torn down.
I don't think I would want to live next to such a dense area. Apartment complexes are bad enough with extra traffic/noise but this place will have a food service center so trucks will be coming and going from the area at different times. Won't there also need to be other services? What about ambulances coming and going?
The concerns that the neighborhood association has with this development is that it is MASSIVE! Our property is extremely close to the devolpment and feel that it would tower over our property and is not compatible with the neighborhood. It is surrounded by beautiful homes. It is like putting a huge development complex right in the middle of a neighborhood! I wonder how many of the people that are in favor of this project, would want this in their backyard??!!.... including the developer?! How woulod he feel to have a massive development that is three stories high approx 75 feet from his property line??!! After reading the article, I wonder how the Pitch came up with the sub- title, "The Tutera Group isn't getting much resistance to its plan to wall off a chunk of Prairie Village for the Medicare set"? Obviously the Pitch has not attended ANY of the neighborhood meetings where Tutera and his swashbuckling sidekick attorney presented their case in which not one neighbor spoke in favor of the project...interesting!
I think you people should read the entire article. You obviously have a family or financial relationship with the developer. Perhaps you work for Parris communications...the developers public relations firm. It speaks volumes when a developer has to hire a PR firm to post on the internet. The article speaks to several controversial issues on both sides. Perhaps the developer is anti- neighborhood or anti- youth. THis Nimby term is straight out of the PR playbook. Prairie Village is already over-bedden for retirement centers compared to the rest of Johnson County 2:1. The "Y" generation ,ages 17-34, is coming -at 86 million people- bigger than the boomers (80 million). If Prairie Village continues to build retirement centers and close schools the coming generation of children will be headed to Blue Valley and Olathe. Why not build a residential developement for families and children. If one buys the land before it is rezoned or contingent on a Special Use Permit shouldn't he expect a divergence of opinion? The surrounding neighbors property rights are just as important as the developers.
I agree about the Atriums and Lucille. We have a family member there, and it has been a life-saver.
With the aging populations, it's a simple fact that we do need more facilities for the elderly, especially for those with medical needs and dementia that the rest of the person's family just isn't equipped to deal with. Getting all NIMBY about these facilities seems pretty short-sighted and selfish.
Re: “The Tutera Group isn't getting much resistance to its plan to wall off a chunk of Prairie Village for the Medicare set”
Anonymous council people posting! Tisk tisk!