Steve Pracht Apr 2 2025 at 7:39PM on page 67 Suggestion Would like to see Timm Valley Rd NE designated as MLSF to be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Timm Valley can only be accessed from roads within the Peachtree Park neighborhood and contains a number of single-family residences. replies
BRIAN Apr 2 2025 at 4:32PM on page 72 Suggestion these two are described and look very similar in the graphic. Can they be combined and then you have one less to deal with? replies
Ben Allen Apr 2 2025 at 3:31PM on page 35 Suggestion Equity is more encompassing than Equality. If I gave everyone an escalator to get from one floor to another that is not equitable for wheelchair users. So, equity means also investing in elevators to give everyone the same access. replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:15PM on page 116 Suggestion zone the whole city for any density a developer wants. let people build a big house on a big lot if they want. or let them build many houses, or let them build an apartment building let people build houses. period. stop preventing housing,you're making all of us worse off when you do replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:14PM on page 88 Suggestion terrible terrible terrible. You are zoning these areas for cars. Make them high density, then MARTA can run a bus line to them and people can take MARTA instead replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:13PM on page 78 Suggestion large lots and low density prevent seniors from being allowed to age in place. it ensures that either: their taxes will increase, forcing them out of their homes or if you cap their taxes city services will be cut, making their homes and their city unsafe and unsanitary The way you let seniors age in place is by zoning the city for high density. That way more young residents can move in, and those young taxpayer residents can support the services needed by seniors in their old age replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:11PM on page 76 Suggestion this is zoning that is anti-transit, pro-car, and directly contradicts the principles that are supposed to guide this development plan replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:10PM on page 72 Suggestion Everywhere near MARTA stations should have this zoning replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:10PM on page 72 Suggestion this zoning should not exist. This is a way to protect large landowners at the expense of all the rest of the city replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:09PM on page 71 Suggestion zoning most of the city as low density directly contradicts this claim. replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:09PM on page 71 Suggestion zoning most of the city as low density directly contradicts this claim replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:08PM on page 71 Suggestion when you zone most of the city as low density, you ensure most of it is not going to be restored as forest zone it for high density. Then 100 people can live close to a MARTA station, while areas away from MARTA stations can be rewilded. replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:08PM on page 70 Suggestion by zoning the areas around MARTA stations as low density, you are failing in this mission. you can improve transit by zoning the areas around all MARTA stations as high density. That would let more people live in near MARTA stations which would give them access to a means of travel that is not a car (because they could travel on MARTA) replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:06PM on page 70 Suggestion you are failing in this mission by surrounding so many MARTA stations with low density development. By surrounding MARTA stations with low density, you prevent huge amounts of citizens from living in areas where they can use an alternative to cars for travel replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:05PM on page 69 Suggestion buildings from more than 50 years could have asbestos in the walls, lead in the paint, bare copper wiring, and health hazards galore. All these are bad for our health, the environment, and our general welfare We should allow developers to tear down and replace old buildings with new ones replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:04PM on page 69 Suggestion the market will balance better than a government board. let the market decide where there should be more housing, more jobs, more restaurants. replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:03PM on page 69 Suggestion So ensure that NIMBYs get a veto over housing. This is terrible, don't do it replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:03PM on page 69 Suggestion The areas near MARTA stations should be high density. Otherwise you are lying about your commitment to being transit oriented replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:02PM on page 67 Suggestion This MARTA station should have high density development around it. replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:01PM on page 67 Suggestion This area is high density, yet is far away from any MARTA station. Yet you have surrounded so many MARTA stations with low density development. If this area can be high density, then so can East Lake, Candler Park, and every other MARTA station's surroundings replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 8:00PM on page 67 A MARTA station should not be surrounded by low density development. High density development is what is needed around a MARTA station replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:59PM on page 67 This MARTA station is surrounded by very low density zoning. That is not, under any circumstances, transit oriented development. That is protecting large landowners replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:58PM on page 65 Suggestion transit oriented development? You have outlined most marta stations as being areas that will be "preserved" in their current low-density character. This is not transit oriented development at all. Anyone should be able to build an apartment block within 5 blocks of a MARTA station. Otherwise MARTA will continue to decay as its ridership ages out. replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:55PM on page 53 Suggestion Every neighborhood in this city once had no houses at all. Stop preserving our poverty, let people build. If someone wants to build 5 houses where 1 once stood, that is better for all of us. It lowers house prices which in turn lowers homelessness and lets young people finally start families. By preserving low density neighborhoods you increase homelessness among your citizens and prevent the establishment of families. You make us all poorer replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:53PM on page 53 Suggestion our city is not encased in Amber, nor should it be. If we "preserved" the city as it was in 1890 we would all be worse off for it. Manhattan island was once farms. If we had forced "preservation" upon it, it would be farmland still. Stop preserving our poverty, allow us to be wealthy instead! If someone wants to pay a million dollars for my lot and turn it into something else, STOP PRESERVING MY POVERTY! Let them give me money! replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:51PM on page 46 Suggestion You are protecting poor neighborhoods from ever becoming rich. You protect us from anyone who wants to give us money. You are intentionally keeping us poor. replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:51PM on page 46 Question This is a terrible idea! If a neighborhood is poor, WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE CHANGE! WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT! How will poor neighborhoods ever become rich if we prohibit any change! replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:50PM on page 45 Suggestion Setbacks only protect large landowners. Stop having them be mandatory. Let people decide their own setback when they build a house replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:49PM on page 44 Suggestion Let lots be subdivided more. There is no reason not to except to protect large landowners replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:48PM on page 41 Suggestion You complain that this area has growth, IT HAS LOW GROWTH BECAUSE YOU HAVE DEMANDED IT BE "CONSERVED". Place this who area in the Growth area, allow anyone to build there who wants. otherwise you have only yourself to blame when this area does not grow replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:47PM on page 40 Suggestion This was the exact excuse for making Atlanta a "Conservation area" years ago. You are making the same mistakes of the past when you try to "conserve" Atlanta today, you decry incoming citizens who dare to trespass where current residents live. This is shameful replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:45PM on page 36 Suggestion It seems like almost the entire city, including areas which are covered in very low density houses, is being "conserved" from economic growth. This makes all of us more poor. replies
John Apr 1 2025 at 7:44PM on page 36 Suggestion This is a bad idea. You are protecting yourself from incoming taxpayers? You are protecting yourself from incoming prosperity? The protected areas will simply be foisting higher taxes on the entire city as they shoo away any jobs and houses that could be built there. You implicitly raise everyone's taxes when you designate certain areas as "protected" from economic growth. replies
bubble to view comments.
Loading Glossary…
Comments
Close