Prairie Village Citizen

Prairie Village Zoning Talking Points

Many folks have asked for talking points regarding Prairie Village zoning – talking points based on the real world and evidence. Talking points that are about helping Prairie Village instead of holding it back. Below are those points in two forms: one in the form of a sample draft you can use to communicate with City Council, and another that is points to counter disinformation.

To the City Council,

I’m writing today to ask that you continue on the path you’ve set over the past two years: listen to our professional staff and expert consultants regarding improvements to our City’s zoning regulations for multi-family, commercially zoned districts, and mixed-use districts.

The proposed updates to our City’s zoning regulations for these designated districts are necessary for these key reasons:

1. Our home owners are overburdened due to vacant and underutilized commercially zoned districts. We need clearer, more modern zoning regulations to encourage redevelopment in the areas of our community that aren’t performing as intended (e.g. 95th & Nall, Stateline Center, etc.).
2. Subsidizing shopping districts is unsustainable. We cannot and should not continue mistakes of the past and govern land use based on two shopping districts that have to be subsidized because they are built on a dying model of commerce (single level retail).
3. More clarity around mixed-use developments is a necessity, and we need to set boundaries that work in all areas of the city to ensure we, the community, are benefiting in every way possible: economically, socially, and physically.
   1. Mixed-use developments have proven to be very efficient at generating tax revenues for the State, County, Schools, and the City. We should seek to maximize this opportunity as recommended by our City Planner since it is our best option to provide meaningful and sustainable tax relief to our residents.
   2. Like strip malls, urban sprawl is not sustainable either. We have the ability to add housing stock via mixed-use developments (particularly along the 95th Street corridor, and State Line Road) and this is a necessity as the forecasted demand for housing in the KC metro-area is only increasing. Our community has the ability, and thus the responsibility, to add missing middle housing that will support a more virtuous cycle of home ownership and occupancy as residents move through stages of life while preserving vast green spaces in our rural surroundings.
   3. Mixed-use developments are the most efficient and effective option to meet our communities desired outcomes in terms of being more walkable/bikeable while increasing safety and accessibility to more shops, restaurants, and housing options.

All of this accomplishes the goal of preserving Prairie Village for what it was, is, and needs to be…a community for families to raise their children. The path we are on is unbalanced in this regard, as evidenced by the near record low population in our City and the fact that the only demographic that has grown in the past decade is residents age 60 and older.

We need these proposed updates to our City’s zoning regulations to be approved by the City Council so we can begin to meet the challenges of today and ensure the future of our City is as vibrant as its past. Anything less than this will only serve a select few who are trying to convert Prairie Village from a community of families to a country club of retirees.

Thank you for your service,

Disinformation Talking Points

Debunking lies, misinformation and disinformation from Citizens United to Stop Prairie Village

1. Prairie Village is the “most dense city” in the metro
   1. This is easily proven false by viewing the Census Bureau’s map of neighborhood density by census track. The majority of neighborhoods in Prairie Village have similar or lower densities than all surrounding neighborhoods.
   2. Zoom in to Prairie Village and see for yourself: https://maps.geo.census.gov/ddmv/map.html
   3. Comparing Prairie Village’s density on a per square mile basis is text book disinformation. Comparing our 6.2 sq. miles to cities with 10x or 100x the square mileage allows for statistical dilution of population density. In plain terms, these larger cities devote a large portion of their square mileage to uses like Interstate Highways, industrial and office parks, as well as park land. Dividing population by the total square mileage of these locations makes it seem like they are less dense than they actually are at a neighborhood level.
      1. A tell-tale sign this is a disinformation tactic is that this group ignores the more comparable surrounding cities like Merriam, Mission, Roeland Park, and Leawood. As the table below illustrates, Prairie Village is third among this more apt comparison in terms of population per square mile. Also note that Merriam is more dense by Census tract than square mile because so much of their square mileage is consumed by I-35, freight rail, and adjacent industrial zones.
         

2. Prairie Village’s public schools are overcrowded, so we shouldn’t add missing middle housing.
   1. This is good ‘ol fashioned misinformation (at best). Over the last 40 years there have been four public schools that have been closed in Prairie Village due to low student enrollment (Porter, Somerset, Ridgeview, and Mission Valley).
   2. The declining student population wasn’t the only factor that led to these closures. Persistent underfunding of public education during the Brownback administration (many of the CUSPV are Brownback advocates), led to the closure of Somerset and Mission Valley in particular.
   3. Prairie Village’s population is near an all time low, and the demographic composition of this population is particularly concerning. Over the past 10 years the only age demographic that has grown in Prairie Village is 60+.
   4. This means we are likely to see another school closure in the next 10 – 15 years if we do not address the lack of housing options in our community that encourage single family homes to be occupied by families with children rather than single couples in retirement.
3. Prairie Village’s infrastructure can’t support any more population
   1. This is a completely false claim. The people regurgitating this claim consistently conflate infrastructure integrity (a current concern being addressed through State, County, and Municipal investment programs) with infrastructure capacity.
   2. Infrastructure capacity is not a concern in Prairie Village. Here’s the math: Using only single family homes as our guide, there are approximately 9,000 single family homes in Prairie Village. These homes and the infrastructure designed to support them assumes that each home has at least 3 occupants (again families are not couples). So, 9,000 x 3 = 27,000. Prairie Village’s population today sits at roughly 23,000. In other words, we are 4,000 residents short of the minimum infrastructure capacity.
   3. NOW, here’s the kicker…any civil engineer will tell you that infrastructure capacity is not designed to the size of the resident population because that would be prone to stress as transient populations come into that planned community. It is more likely that the infrastructure capacity of Prairie Village was designed to support a population of 2 – 2.5x the 27,000. As the City’s water, wastewater, storm sewers, road, and other core infrastructure are modernized these capacities are being reinforced or expanded through improved design, materials and technology.
4. Only developers win with these changes to zoning regulations
   1. Let’s talk about tax burden in Johnson County. In predominantly residential communities like Prairie Village the tax burden for the State, County, School District, and Municipality is largely placed on residential properties.
   2. As the supply of homes in the KC metro area remains constrained these residential properties are subject to the laws of supply and demand. Low supply + high demand = higher prices. Even with tax rate reductions like we saw from the County, the School District and the City of Prairie Village, the overall tax bills still go up because price increases are so severe.
   3. Couple this with escalating costs for labor, materials, and services required to run a city and we have a recipe for increased financial stress on property owners.
   4. So what can we do to alleviate this stress?
      1. Further rate reductions have a minimal effect at the municipal level because it only returns tens of dollars a year to the majority of homeowners.
      2. The best option available is to improve economic activity in commercial centers to support other sources of tax revenue (e.g. sales and use tax). In order to do this, cities must assess how their codes encourage or discourage redevelopment activity in existing commercial zones.
5. Make no changes to the Village and Corinth Shops
   1. Single level retail concepts are struggling, due in large part to the dominance of online retail providers like Amazon and Wal-Mart.
   2. It is unlikely that this trend will change in our lifetime, so the question must be answered, “What can we do with three single level retail centers that are subsidized and still struggling to sustain tenant occupancy?”