IBJOpinion

EDITORIAL: Smart growth likely result of Zionsville battle

 IBJ Staff
May 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Editorial

Zionsville’s family feud over commercial real estate development has stirred passions among people who seem to agree, at least outwardly, on one point: The town’s growth should be managed to preserve its quality of life.

We agree. The folks in Zionsville are no doubt familiar with Indianapolis’ north side and know what happens when development occurs without proper planning.

In the early 1970s, Castleton became a traffic nightmare that eventually spread west to the Keystone at the Crossing area. The demand for commercial space along the 82nd Street/86th Street corridor has outpaced the ability of area roads to accommodate the traffic. At peak times, people are stuck in their cars. Walking isn’t an option.

But there is another way. Carmel’s City Center and Arts & Design District are contemporary examples of planned growth that integrate commercial and residential development. Downtowns in Indianapolis, Noblesville and Zionsville benefit from their old-fashioned but effective street grids and walkable environments.

Zionsville’s quaint downtown isn’t threatened, but the wrong kind of development elsewhere in Zionsville could turn it into an oasis in the midst of chaos.

That’s the fear that some people voiced as rival factions slugged it out in the recent primary election that effectively determined who will occupy seven seats on the Zionsville’s town council after elections in November.

Both sides say they’re pro growth, provided development is properly planned and implemented. But accusations have flown that some candidates’ professed support for growth is insincere. On the other side, there are suspicions that growth advocates intend to let it happen unchecked.

The mistrust that divides those who are most passionate about the town’s future is unfortunate, but at least someone is paying attention. If all the interested parties stay engaged, it seems like a good bet Zionsville will get the commercial growth it needs for its tax base without letting new development fundamentally change its identity.

Tennis down, not out

As construction workers build a parking garage on what used to be practice courts for the Indianapolis Tennis Center near IUPUI, a determined group of tennis enthusiasts is working hard to find another venue to keep the sport alive here.

It’s unfortunate that a facility as relatively new as the late 1970s tennis center is already history, but the tennis enthusiasts, who call themselves Save Downtown Tennis, should be commended for not giving up just because the bricks-and-mortar embodiment of their sport disappeared (see story on page 3).

The group says it’s closing in on funding for a 16-court facility that could host numerous amateur-level events and might lure another stop on the professional tennis tour. And it’s negotiating with the city regarding the availability of three city-owned sites near downtown where the new courts could be built.

The city’s sports culture and tourism trade need not rely entirely on big-ticket sports such as professional football, basketball and auto racing. Save Downtown Tennis understands that. We hope the group succeeds in its quest to maintain a presence here for its favorite sport.•

__________

To comment on these editorials, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT