Vote no
Let's be honest about the Broomfield/Crawford development.
It will be on the ballot Tuesday, which could end a situation that has been hanging over Mount Pleasant since at least 1998.
United Investments is hoping to get the green light to develop student housing in the area, likely to compete with complexes sprouting up, seemingly monthly, in Union Township.
Ask if this is right for Mount Pleasant.
It isn't, but not for the reasons opponents typically give.
Because of the rampant influx of complexes in Union (whose overeager construction approvals shouldn't force Mount Pleasant's hand), many apartments in the area are having problems filling up. This is good for students and anyone paying for rent in Mount Pleasant.
It's bad for the city, though.
While high vacancy rates mean lower prices, it also means lower property values for residents.
That is likely why residents near the development are opposed to it.
Increased traffic and fear of students' behavior have been cited for nearly a decade in Central Michigan Life's pages. But those are not legitimate reasons to oppose this. This is a bad idea on its own.
United Investments has worked to compromise and it's their land so they should not be told they can't do anything with it. They should be allowed to modify their proposal to focus more on single-family housing and less on multiple-unit (apartment) housing for students.
CMU's enrollment is practically stagnant. Adding capacity for anywhere from 900 to 2,000 new residents doesn't seem needed.
There are 28,185 housing units in Mount Pleasant (as of the last census check-up in 2006) and only 22,425 households - that includes residence hall rooms and those living on their own.
That's 20 percent more housing than necessary.
A responsible thing for Mount Pleasant would be to cater to the community rather than to the students.
In other words, take the suggestions given during the last decade and build homes for families.
There is a glut of student housing in Mount Pleasant. Many have vacancies; if they are vacant now, what will happen when more options are available?
Prices will fall, but that's not in the best interest of Mount Pleasant in the long run.
Prices wouldn't fall fast enough to lower current students' rent, by the time anything is constructed and the market forces lower prices (probably not even close to as much as inflation and other costs rise), we'll be gone.
So this vote is about the future of those who call this their home. Let's respect that and vote no on Broomfield/Crawford.
But in the future, how about if everybody involved figures out new ways to fill vacant homes before building new ones?
