O’Fallon needs to focus on thoughtful growth

On page 8 of this issue, Elizabeth Carreno reports that O’Fallon is contemplating multifamily housing studies. Let’s talk about that.

Most of us want the same things from growth in O’Fallon: roads that can handle traffic, good schools, well-kept neighborhoods and a place our children can afford when they’re ready to move out. We’d also like somewhere to stay when mowing a big yard and climbing stairs lose their appeal.

That’s why the city’s decision to study multifamily housing makes sense. After a proposed apartment moratorium failed, council members agreed to form a working group to sort through questions about housing, traffic, schools and city services.

Good. Let’s get some answers. But let’s keep the people who need homes at the center of this conversation.

Around St. Charles County, much of the discussion has focused on hitting pause. The County Council approved a six-month apartment moratorium for unincorporated areas. Dardenne Prairie pursued a yearlong moratorium and was considering further restrictions earlier this year. Those decisions deserve scrutiny, including whether they will leave communities with enough housing choices.

O’Fallon is no longer just an exurb. It’s a community now, and communities require an ability to serve different people at different times in their life. A young adult getting started, a family needing more space and a retiree ready to downsize may all want to live in the same community.

St. Peters takes an approach worth examining. Its multifamily zoning districts allow up to 10 or 14 homes per acre and are intended for places where roads, water and sewer service can support them. O’Fallon doesn’t have to copy those limits. But asking where apartments fit is a useful starting point.

Residents have reasonable concerns. Nobody wants another long line at an overloaded intersection or to learn that needed infrastructure improvements will arrive years after new neighbors move in. Those concerns should get specific answers: Which intersections need work? What will improvements cost? When will they happen? What will these buildings look like in 20 years?

The same goes for schools. Ask districts what enrollment they actually see from different kinds of housing and where they have room. For police, fire and ambulance services, compare calls per household or resident.

We also need to ask who can afford to live here. What can a beginning teacher afford? A grocery store employee? Someone living on retirement income? How many homes fit those budgets? An apartment isn’t automatically affordable, and a new subdivision doesn’t necessarily offer a realistic first home.

The working group should start with those practical questions, use information already available and return with initial findings within six months. Set a budget, explain what each expense buys and share the findings publicly.

Then make decisions people can understand. Identify suitable places for apartments, duplexes, townhomes and smaller houses. Set clear expectations for landscaping, drainage, building size and connections to surrounding streets. Give neighbors a meaningful voice and applicants a clear process.

Take care of the housing already here, too. Enforce maintenance standards consistently. Look for ways to help older properties remain safe and livable without pricing out their tenants.

Any restriction should answer a simple question: What specific problem will this solve? If the evidence doesn’t show a problem, officials should be willing to say so.

A year from now, residents should be able to point to what this work accomplished: clearer rules, better planning for roads and services, and a better understanding of the homes people need.

O’Fallon should remain a place where people can put down roots and stay through life’s changes. That’s a goal worth planning for.

O’Fallon needs to focus on thoughtful growth

Comments