Every Day Joe

January 16, 2026

by Donna Hemann

Happy New Year neighbors! Hope it's off to a good start, or at the least, no worse than last year's. If it is, here's hoping it will improve soon, with brighter skies on the horizon.

As far as UHNA Public Policy News is concerned, the old silent film and Western phrase, "Meanwhile Back at the Ranch" comes to mind. Here we are again, in the midst of the Sunshine/National location, and as you may know, the Valiant Group, a "property management, home rental and real estate development firm" as the front page of their website describes them, is interested in purchasing BK&M's properties in University Heights. I encourage you to go to their website and give it a good look so you can get a taste of their flavor.

Tuesday, January 13th, the Group met with neighbors at our regular Board meeting and the end result, as the Springfield Daily Citizen reported, was that owner Josh Manning, "feels confident in continuing to explore the purchase" (Springfield Daily Citizen, Ryan Collins, Jan. 14, 2026). He says he would build a "townhome community," and mentioned sixty units with parking lots. Sixty units where five homes stood, including the grand one on the corner of E. University and National that is the southeast entrance to our neighborhood and was in impeccable condition at the time of BK&M's purchase. The seller of that house, according to a former UHNA president, believed, based on comments by BK&M President Ralph Duda, who met with him and made the deal, that he was purchasing the home to live in. Now, Mr. Duda demands to be reimbursed for his over-payment of residentially zoned properties, legal expenses and 'delays' as he puts it. Manning says that for this reason, single family homes or re-purposing existing homes, renting them, or selling them is not possible. So Manning's deal would be predicated on Mr. Duda not taking "a financial loss." (Ibid)

The density of this original part of our neighborhood has been an especially pleasing aesthetic for a hundred years, along with the beauty of homes now intentionally blighted by profiteers. And its traffic-reducing effects are needed now more than ever. The call for not increasing ingress/egress at this intersection is bellowed by the routine car accidents and residents of UH who take alternate routes for leaving and returning to the neighborhood. Travelers, not just residents, bemoaning the stress of driving in this part of town and praising the short stretch of calm provided by UH's residential south border are another testament to the value of our little green lung that gives people a much needed breath.
But who cares? If there's money to be made by people who don't and won't live in the neighborhood, and it will fill government coffers, phooey to serving peace, health and happiness.

As this public policy and real-life living conditions albatross hangs on, it becomes distilled to a couple of points: Do you reward any business and help them profit from ill-gotten gain that places a heavy burden on people who have created the value of something we have today? Do you send the message to future businesses that there is no line they can't cross?

Without question there are other, bigger public policy issues commanding our attention today; immigration, environmental welfare, human rights, health care costs, to name a few, loom large. But fundamentally, for us here in our little world that comprises one pretty section of a Missouri town, we had an opportunity to make a big change in how power brokers operate in relation to Everyday Joe. We had a chance to make a shift. We've partially achieved that shift. During a hearing, a City Council woman, after I concluded my arguments, thanked us for changing the way these types of decisions will be handled in the future. I figure the zoning application process will change too because of our efforts. I still want the Councilman who promised he'd advocate for part of Springfield's recent tax revenue windfall going toward an improved turn lane and sculptural gardens to make good on his word. And I still want the lawsuit protecting the original neighborhood from commercial development and unreasonable density to prevail. Those desires are in the air along with the possibility we're headed toward familiar acquiescence, adopting Manning's pitch, which will be justified with the argument "The City needs missing middle housing." The City does need housing, and one can argue fairly it needs the opportunity for home ownership as much as anything, but concession to this business deal will be a big open door for the next profiteers to play carte blanche. I find that a tired trope.

Among a core of change makers, major shifts in public policy require a unanimous no to something and dedication to going after a specific, desired yes, no holds barred. As an Association we have not had that particular status, but more of an eclectic mix of orientations toward opportunity and change. This status contrasts with Galloway Village, for example, which had a single mindedness in the approach to their zoning issue, seeing it through to a referendum which won by a public vote of 'NO to rezoning' by 71%. Our Association would need that kind of focus to achieve that outcome.

Manning says his next step is creating a design plan for the prospective rental properties and bringing it to the neighborhood. Referring to his idea of creating a townhouse development he explains, "We could do it in a tasteful, manner, right?" (Ibid). Neighbors continue to have an opportunity for feedback, and Manning will arrange another meeting with the neighborhood. It's difficult to imagine the incredible noise, mess, environmental consequences, traffic and other changes for the quiet street I live on and neighborhood many of us have invested so much in should anything close to a 60 unit development come to pass, or should any development come to pass, given the circumstances of the area. It's also a little hard to stomach the vocal approval some people offer when they would be affected very little directly, if at all, by such a change. But that's life, and politics, of course. And you never know, if the townhouse development happens, maybe it would be beautiful, low volume, and maybe no other developer would try to do the same thing to homes all along our perimeters. Maybe neighbors won't mind living in a construction zone for years, and maybe they won't move. I clear my throat when I say that, but I refuse to see the glass half empty.

People frequently approach me in support of the fight for preserving the historic center of UH. If we aren't able to do that, or improve upon it, then so be it. Many of us came together, made some noise, changed some things, and let the town know we cared about history, green corridors, peace and the Everyday Joe.
That's not too bad a start to a new year.

Blessings for UH and good health and happiness to everyone in the midst of all changes,

Donna