2025 General Plan Update (GPU)

Questioned the assumptions and infrastructure costs associated with the General Plan land use study.

Expressed concern over Village Farms and general plan development impacts.

Argued that peripheral development adds unsustainable financial and infrastructure burdens to the city.

Expressed skepticism regarding intercity transit funding and freeway expansion.

Expressed concern over General Plan study assumptions involving floodplains and landfill buffers.

Suggested studying high-density infill scenarios to better evaluate sustainability and VMT reduction.

Argued that peripheral low-density growth is financially and environmentally untenable.

Supported bike and transit infrastructure while requesting broader infill context.

Expressed concern as a Wild Horse resident over proposed peripheral development in floodplains.

Supported bike infrastructure in the plan while noting high per-household infrastructure costs.

Expressed support for protected bike lanes in all future municipal development.

Seconded calls for studying infill densification and bus-only lanes.

Objected to massive northeast development proposed on floodplains and near the landfill.

Spoke against northern expansion and noted existing road maintenance backlogs.

Voiced strong objection to large-scale northeast build-outs citing floodplains, ag loss, and costs.

Expressed confusion over rapid expansion plans and loss of wildlife corridors.

Criticized the general plan study as a surprise proposal ignoring environmental hazards.

Found the task nine transportation plan disturbing due to low-density sprawl and lack of public input.

Called northeast growth proposals irrational and highlighted floodplain and infrastructure hurdles.

Advocated for high-density housing aligned with rapid bus transit corridors.

Urged the council to reject the northeast growth concept and establish a citizen committee.