Brownfield Plan — The Fields at Battle Creek

Opposed, citing studies on subsidized housing near higher-income neighborhoods and a canvas of 250 homes where nearly everyone opposed the project.

Opposed on traffic at the Helmer Road light near schools, safety, and the 30-year tax capture taking from parks and services; questioned due diligence.

A former mayor and retired officer urged a no vote or pause, saying residents were told no subsidized housing and felt duped — 'deception by omission.'

Questioned the 30-year tax capture, what happens to the 48 restricted units after year 20, and asked for cost, insurance, and transparency guarantees.

Said he was confused about what the hearing was for and urged the commission to take the time needed to get it right.

Focused on safety: a crash on Helmer near the school and fear of cut-through traffic on Cherrywood Drive.

A county commissioner and neighbor asked the commission to reconsider, citing five-minute waits to turn onto Helmer and school-time congestion.

Opposed, worried about worse traffic near schools and cut-through traffic through the neighborhood.

The lone supportive neighbor of the night: traffic is a fact of city life, the city can manage issues as they arise, and Battle Creek needs housing.

Opposed the apartment density changing the single-family feel, traffic on a two-lane Helmer, and lack of long-term maintenance assurances.

Opposed: Helmer south of the site is only two lanes, and she questioned the tax break at the expense of existing homeowners.

Bluntly opposed: doesn't want low-income neighbors next door, fears lost property value and crime — 'put it in your neighborhood.'

Flagged the high concentration of young, new drivers near the site as her top safety concern.

Learned of the project the day before; echoed concerns on intersection safety, the 20-year limit on restricted units, and cut-through traffic.

Questioned whether the housing demand exists at all, and said a developer needing a subsidy proves the project doesn't pencil out.

Called the $22.6M tax capture 'corporate welfare' and urged the commission to reject it and put taxpayers first.

Came straight from a 12-hour shift to oppose: 240 apartments at an entrance across from a school will create safety issues on Helmer.

BCU's housing director explained income-restricted is not Section 8, how housing TIF reimbursement works, and the 100%/120% AMI figures.

BCU's CEO gave income examples — starting teacher, police, and firefighter salaries fall within the AMI range — and said Capital Avenue handles similar density.

Wanted a full accounting of how much federal, state, county, and city tax money is in the deal, comparing it to other subsidized projects.

A 27-year Jacaranda resident said established neighborhoods feel unheard and are tired of subsidies; some are talking about leaving.

Raised the human side: renters don't maintain properties, and worried about overcrowding in income-restricted units.

Called school traffic the most compelling concern and asked the developer to get creative on managing apartment traffic to the schools.

Noted the vast majority of speakers opposed the plan and questioned whether approving Resolution 456 was the intended path forward.