Voice of Chandler Special OP-Ed
VOICE OF CHANDLER OP-ED October 21, 2024
Aggressive Out-of-State Developer Challenges Chandler's Plan for Economic Growth and Job Development
As neighbors who actually live and reside in the area, where an out-of-state developer has repeatedly attempted to build housing on land and areas designated for employment and light industry, we are very concerned that our position is being misinterpreted by certain special-interest groups.
The out-of-state developer of Sonoran Landings was offered 14 other locations designated for affordable housing, but they turned them down, refused to work with the City, and thereafter purchased the contested land. We have supported the City's housing endeavors including the Villas on McQueen – which is owned by the City of Chandler and directly addresses the need for affordable housing. The proposed Sonoran Landings project, which we oppose, is nothing like the Villas on McQueen; it would be an absolute falsehood to equate the two.
]
Sonoran Landings is proposed to be built on land designated for industry and employment according to the voter-approved General Plan, Water Plan, and Airpark Area Plan. Does the voice of a voter even count? Should zoning attorneys and special-interest groups decide what happens in a city over the voter-approved plans of the residents? Further, if this project is approved – flouting existing zoning – then Maricopa County will open the floodgates of applications from many other (in-state or out-of-state) developers that the City has fought off to preserve employment land. We will see many more apartments and housing complexes where, in actuality, we should have jobs.
Lastly, this kind of housing is called LIHTC, which means Low Income Housing Tax Credits. When the tax credits expire, so does the affordability. All homes would go to market value in approximately 15 years. The developer and their "accredited investors", having already made their money, will have moved on to the next deal that will use our tax dollars to line their wallets, leaving the seniors with unaffordable housing. It is this type of housing that perpetuates the housing crisis.
This isn’t about blocking development, it’s about ensuring that growth happens in a way that respects the community’s voice and the strategic plan that has guided our city for decades. It’s time to recognize the difference between development that benefits the community and development that seeks to exploit it. Chandler deserves better!
VOICE OF CHANDLER OP-ED November 2, 2023
Aggressive Developer Challenges Chandler's plan for economic and job development
Chandler's Airport Area, which is one of the most valuable economic development resources in our city, is being threatened. Our community and elected officials are facing a significant challenge from a billion-dollar company called Dominium. Based in Minnesota and federally subsidized, Dominium is seeking to rezone land that has been designated for economic development and is doing so with total disregard to a unanimous resolution (#5656) by our mayor and council, who rejected this project by Dominium for violating the Chandler General Plan, Airpark Plan and Water Plan.
For nearly a year, there has been a lot of debate in Chandler surrounding the proposed Sonoran Landings project. The project is planned to be constructed at the Northwest corner of Pinelake Way and Ocotillo Rd and has raised concerns among the city officials and its residents. The leadership of Chandler, including the city staff and the Chamber of Commerce, have consistently opposed the idea of any residential development at this location as Chandler approaches its buildout. They have emphasized that space is scarce, and land allocated for economic growth should be used for the same to preserve future job creation Chandler. Additionally, the city has allocated fourteen sites to any developer interested in helping affected groups and the same was offered to Dominium but were rejected by them.
Chandler is a city we call home. The incredible success story of Chandler is built upon decades of careful planning, visionary leadership, and unwavering community spirit. This planning has helped Chandler become the best place to settle, work, and enjoy a diverse and inclusive community living. The City’s stewardship of the General plan, among others, has preserved the Price Corridor for developments like Intel and Northrup Grumman and has also encouraged many homegrown businesses to flourish. This has helped deliver a city that is a benchmark for good community planning.
So, what did Dominium do once they were asked to halt their plans?
They proceeded to purchase this premium land in the Airpark Area and brought a modified proposal for 4-story high-density housing (for context- the previous proposal which was rejected was 3-story high). Currently there are no 4 story high rises in the southeastern part of Chandler. Dominium says they have moved forward with this modified project after listening to residents. Their statement is puzzling because both the City and the residents rejected them and supported the resolution against their project. The City and residents had urged them to consider the fourteen other locations, but they rejected them. It’s been difficult to consider Dominium’s proposals as having the community interest at heart as this developer themselves has repeatedly not shown goodwill to either the City or its residents.
What is the city’s plan to add more housing?
It includes several massive projects. Firstly, there are 2,800 housing units waiting to be built in general plan-approved locations. Furthermore, the City of Chandler has a large public housing development underway with hundreds of affordable units for seniors and families in line with the General Plan (which is voter approved). This housing will remain affordable indefinitely because it is owned by the City of Chandler. This can offer a higher quality of life for everyone, including the most vulnerable and marginalized. We stand with such well thought out plans.
The Sonoran Landings project, while interfering with employment opportunities, does not align with our city's vision for maintaining a high quality of life for all residents, especially those who will come to reside in this proposed location. The location is too close to the railroad, at an extremely busy intersection, next to the school district bus depot, a landfill and has no accessible public amenities nearby. Furthermore, this project is dependent on tax credits, once tax credits expire, so does affordability. While we acknowledge the importance of providing housing for vulnerable groups, we believe that there are better suited locations in our city, determined by city planners, that can offer a higher quality of life.
As a community, we firmly believe that rezoning plans driven by public relations firms, zoning attorneys, and lobbyists with the sole aim of earning profits for out-of-state investors are unacceptable. Our priority is to preserve the integrity of the voter-approved General Plan to ensure the best outcomes for our residents.
We encourage all residents of Chandler to stand alongside us and our city leaders in safeguarding the future of economic development and planning in our beloved city. Together, we can ensure that Chandler residents will not have their voices squashed by out-of-state developers who have no regard for the vision of their city. If you are so inclined, please contact your Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and urge them to vote against this project. Further details can be found on our website, www.voiceofchandler.com
Team at VoiceofChandler.com – a diverse, multi-ethnic group of neighbors, seeking to preserve the integrity of our communities.
VOICE OF CHANDLER OP-ED January 16, 2023
Last month, the City of Chandler unanimously passed Resolution 5656 to reject the proposed ‘Landings on Ocotillo’ high-density housing project. Through it all, the developer, Dominium, continues to smear our neighbors for no other reason than we support the plans that have been voted on and approved for our community.
Along with the city, we support additional affordable housing for the community. But the fact is, this isn’t about affordable housing. If it were, then the for-profit developer—and their high-paid zoning lawyers, PR firms, and associates—would have found a way to make the project work at one (or more) of the 14 other sites that fit within existing planning. This is about profit. And to make matters worse, in just 15 years, this housing can (and probably will) convert to regular market rate housing. This means that the subsidies will go away, and the tenants who need the subsidies will get kicked out.
The reality is that the City of Chandler has already approved multiple affordable housing projects in line with the voter-approved City Master Plan. In October, the City of Chandler approved a large public housing development for seniors. In November, the City approved hundreds of affordable housing units in its Downtown District. Resident and neighborhood opposition groups have been unanimous in their support for affordable housing, which can be further evidenced by their 85% affirmative vote on the Chandler General Plan.
The problem is that the high-density housing project (Landings) proposed by the Developer (Dominium) is on an unsuitable county island site. Development as a multifamily living site is incompatible with the voter-approved General Plan, the Chandler Water Master Plan, and the Chandler Airpark Area Plan, as noted by the City Council in Resolution 5656.
Given that Arizona is a desert, the largest issue is the incompatibility with the Chandler Water Master Plan—the site in question does not have the water capacity to support any form of housing. The City allocates water in accordance with the Chandler Water plan depending on intended use and zoning. The site in question is currently zoned for farming with the plan to rezone it to light industry or employment under the Chandler General Plan and Chandler Airpark Plan. Light industrial/employment is allocated 121 gpd per 1,000 ft, whereas the proposed multifamily housing requires over twice that amount at 253 gpd per 1,000 ft. If this project were approved, the site would have grossly insufficient water. Neither Dominium nor its representatives have addressed in the media or to government officials how they will supply the 102 gpd shortfall. With existing drought conditions, Chandler is currently under Tier 2 water shortage restrictions. There is simply not enough water to support this proposed development at this location.
The assumption that this land would be used for light industrial uses has been the basis for other plans like traffic planning. Using this land for housing instead of light industrial would increase the number of cars on the road in an area that already has the highest traffic incidents with a record injury rate when compared to the rest of southern Chandler. The full impact on traffic from current construction projects is yet to be felt in this already congested area, and this unplanned project would only make it worse. The roads in the neighborhood currently have a B grading. The impact of the many projects which are under construction and coming up in this area and its effects on road capacity are yet to be measured.
The City of Chandler offered Dominium fourteen other locations for consideration that are in line with existing plans. Dominium refused to consider these other locations. Instead, they are solely focused on this specific parcel of land. The alternate locations are smaller, but they have the requisite water allocation and would fit within the parameters of the voter-approved Chandler Master Plan.
The everyday residents who live and work in this neighborhood were all universally opposed to the project at the City Council meeting. Those who spoke in favor were from other cities and organizations. Should special interest groups and outside actors determine what is best for a city? Is the voice and concern of the neighbors and residents inferior to that of a deep-pocketed developer with the right political connections?
Enough is enough. Where a voter-approved plan exists, we the people should always have final say—not some multi-million-dollar corporation. And when this case is brought before the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors this year, they must affirm this important principle.