Laserfiche WebLink
rational, and perhaps, slower approach to new growth: balancing <br />tax base needs against residential livability. <br />Residents also expressed strong opinions about future <br />development initiatives. Majorities support initiatives by the <br />City to aggressively attract more single family homes, senior <br />citizen apartments and/or condominiums, and �ight �ndustrial <br />opportunities. They alsa suppart active discouragement of more <br />apartment buildings, condominiums, mobile homes, retail shopping <br />centers, and commercial office buildings. They are divided about <br />the approach to townhouses and retail and service businesses. If <br />there is a unifying theme, it is an antipathy toward high density <br />residential, commercial, and retail possibilities. <br />A general majarity consensus was also evident on the trade- <br />off between property tax base and traffic congestion. Fifty-five <br />percent would support some new development to help keep taxes <br />down, but only if the impact on traffic congestion is moderate. <br />However, thirty-seven percent, a substantial minority, would <br />opposed mast new development adding to the current traffic <br />congestion problems. In the future, traffic considerations <br />should be paramount in any development decisions. <br />NIMBY -- "not in my backyard" is certainly present in <br />Roseville. Seventy-eight percent of the sample would oppose new <br />commercial, office, or retail development on sites adjacent to <br />their neighborhoods. Opposition is based upon the perception <br />that Roseville has enough of these types af developments, a fear <br />about losing neighborhood cohesiveness, and declining property <br />values. A slim majority, fifty-one percent, would oppose new <br />150 <br />