This past week, city officials asked some 200 property owners a question: do you want to keep your home and your neighborhood as it is?
Initially, we make one fact crystal clear, and that is that we are neither anti-commercial development nor are we anti-growth. In fact, in commentary and op-ed pieces that have appeared in this newspaper we have often lamented the fact that commercial developers and others have repeatedly overlooked the potential for development in North and East Lubbock.
Having said that though; we feel that we must weigh in on an issue that has residents of Lubbock’s Jackson neighborhood asking many questions and speculating on what the future holds for residents of this neighborhood.
It is an area that can best be described as the future northern boundary of the Marsha Sharp Freeway (MSF), with University Ave on the west, Ave Q on the east, 3rd street on the north and the freeway service road serving as the south boundary.
According to people we have talked to, including Councilwoman Linda DeLeon, who serves on the council as District 1 representative, the issue of rezoning this area was an initiative first discussed when the plans for construction of the MSF were being laid out. At that time, property owners and residents met with city staff to discuss the impact the freeway would have on the area which would eventually wind up as a backyard to the freeway’s north service road.
The discussions revolved around possible rezoning and land use changes; meaning that the opening of the freeway would more than likely result in new issues cropping up resulting from the completion of the roadway itself. Issues envisioned then, ranged from increased traffic and noise to the erection of a physical barrier which would have the potential of cutting off access to the affected area.
As best that we can tell, there are approximately 200 individual property owners directly impacted by the proposed land use change. That number increases when the total number of residents is added into the mix. In addition, the area is populated with people who are renters; they too will be displaced if proposed policy changes are implemented. Additionally there are a countless number of residents who live north of 3rd street. Although they may not live in the affected area, they nevertheless would be affected by the change and proximity of new commercial wholesale development to their neighborhood.
One of our primary concerns, when we look at the overall picture, is that this effort will move along as fast as a tumbleweed in a West Texas wind storm and that folks will let their vision be clouded by the economic windfall that situations like these produce. If so, will the long term effects to the neighborhood and most importantly to residents of the area be pushed aside to the curb?
Although some parts of the neighborhood have fallen into disrepair due to a variety of economic circumstances, it is still home to many. The schools surrounding the neighborhood, Jackson Elementary and Cavazos Jr. High further to the north, have been the same schools attended by the parents of some of the kids who attend school there now.
At this point in the process, city management, and staff in the city’s planning and zoning department, has been assigned to come up with policy land use changes and recommendations which can then be presented to the entire council for approval or disapproval. In this case, staff proposals include three different scenarios:

Version 1
This version can best be described as a mixed land use proposal. It calls for half of a block, between 4th street and 3rd and between University and Ave Q to be rezoned for use as approximately half residential and half commercial and includes a screening fence between the two. Access to the service road would remain open except for access from Temple Ave and Ave W.
Version 2
This version would involve rezoning the total square block area from 4th street to 3rd between Ave X and Ave R. This would seem to require the displacement of all residential units since land use would be converted to commercial wholesale.
Version 3
This version leaves the area relatively unchanged and zoned for residential use.

As one can see, the three versions could easily be renamed half (V1), all (V2), or nothing at all (V3).
Doing nothing seems the least viable option. Doing nothing and leaving the area relatively the same will eventually result in further neighborhood deterioration, decreasing property values, and further exposing the area to social ills such as crime and illegal activity.
Version 3 seems to be a combination of land use which would result in more confusion than compromise between homeowners and commercial developers. Version 2, which at this point most residents seem to prefer, impacts the greatest number of people but opens the door to some serious policy questions. Among the many questions, here are just a few:

• How will the most comprehensive rezoning, if version 2 is implemented, affect the overall make-up of the community? Not just the proposed area between 3rd and 4th street, but the areas to the north?
• What about people who live in the affected area as renters and not owners: what about their displacement? Where will they relocate to? Will they be able to afford what will probably be a higher priced rental than the one they live in now?
• How much input will property owners and residents affected by the zone changes have in the final decision?
• Will rezoning be approved even if some residents/property owners/citizens oppose land use changes?
• How will neighborhood schools be affected? Will this force the closure of schools such as Jackson Elementary due to lower student populations?
• If rezoning occurs and property owners determine that they cannot get fair market value for their homes and choose not to sell, will eminent domain come into play?
• Will the new commercial development pose a competitive threat to the small businesses located in close proximity to the new commercial wholesale zone? Will it force these types of businesses to close?

At this point, more questions than answers seem to be the order of the day.
About the only thing that is certain is that the mostly residential area, and the make up of the neighborhood, will definitely undergo some dramatic changes.
More than 300 property owners and residents attended a neighborhood meeting last Monday held at Jackson Elementary to listen to city staff proposals and air their concerns. Based on eyewitness accounts provided to El Editor by people who were in attendance, most residents seemed to be in agreement with Version 2.
They recognize the obvious: and that is that the neighborhood has seen its best days and recognize that the majority of the area has steadily deteriorated and is primed for falling victim to increased crime and other social ills that follow neighborhood decline.
As we previously stated, when we look at this issue in its entirety, we are more concerned with the long term effects this will inevitably have; not only on the people who are directly impacted, but also on the rest of the area. We are strong advocates of neighborhood schools and understand that some families in the neighborhood have deep roots there. Dramatic landscape shifts, such as this one, tend to have long lasting effects for years to come.
While some people feel that the zoning changes may be an opportunity to sell their property, other homeowners are more concerned with getting enough money from the sale of their property to be able to afford another house. Still others say that their home is paid for and are not sure whether they will be able to sell their home and have enough money to buy another one at today’s prices; especially if they are retired. Still others are concerned with the problems that commercial development brings; increased traffic and congestion. All legitimate concerns.
Finding a balance between residents, property owners and commercial developers should be the compass guiding city officials. Every effort should be made to give equal weight to all parties involved.
Commercial development and new business opportunities are good for a community; but we cannot forget about the very people who add to their prosperity in the first place.
Whatever decisions are made; our hope is that when all is said and done, that all parties involved can come away from the bargaining table, satisfied in knowing that this was a cooperative effort between residents and a city government that cares about all of its citizens.