Subdivision Committee
Metropolitan Plan Commission
Delaware County, Indiana
Dear Subdivision Committee,
My name is Colby Gray, and I am an urban and environmental planner and a fourth-generation resident of Delaware County. I have studied the City and the County from various perspectives for 20 years.
One of the major challenges we face as a county is the issue of infrastructure overextension. From a purely infrastructural and financial perspective, Delaware County is severely overbuilt. We maintain an extensive network of roads, streets, and sidewalks that we simply cannot afford to keep up with. At the same time, we have a large stock of older housing—properties that are deteriorated, under-invested, and in many cases in need of demolition or complete reconstruction. Much of this housing exists on platted land that has sat underutilized for decades. On top of this, we are now seeing a wave of housing approaching what I often call the “danger zone”—properties where the cost of purchase and the cost of even basic cosmetic upgrades often do not make financial sense. This puts entire neighborhoods at risk of long-term decline. So when a proposal comes forward to build a new subdivision, especially in a greenfield area, it naturally gives someone with my perspective tremendous pause.
There is a second dimension to this conversation as well: farmland preservation. Farmland is Delaware County’s number one economic engine. It is the foundation of our tax base. And among all land uses, farmland requires the least amount of public spending in return. In other words, it is a net positive for the county. By contrast, suburbs—even under the best conditions—never generate enough long-term revenue to pay for their own infrastructure. The upfront costs may be borne by the developer, but the long-term maintenance liabilities inevitably fall to the county. We have seen this pattern repeat itself for over 80 years.
To put this simply: we do not need another subdivision in Delaware County. From an infrastructure management standpoint, it is unnecessary. It deepens a long-standing maintenance deficit. It compounds problems we are already struggling to address. And it leaves future taxpayers with even greater burdens.
I want to be clear: none of this is new. These concerns are reflected in presentations I have given across the community. These are not ideological positions. They are not political. They are not emotional. They are simply facts about how infrastructure liabilities work.
I also want to express genuine respect for the process we are in today. By the time public comment opens, I understand that significant time, money, and effort have already been invested by engineers, landowners, financial institutions, and development teams. I recognize that. I appreciate it. And I do not take it lightly. So I will not be surprised if our concerns about this specific project are ultimately set aside. But it is my responsibility to speak honestly from the standpoint of my research and vocation.
My request—if nothing else—is that we use this moment as an opportunity to reflect on whether this is truly the direction we want to continue moving as a county. And if not, how we can more clearly communicate that upfront to developers, builders, and landowners.
There are a number of potential policy approaches we could consider:
• Pause new greenfield subdivisions until the county addresses its existing infrastructure deficit.
• Adopt a Net-Zero Land Development policy. For every acre developed or every linear foot of new pavement created, an equivalent amount of obsolete or blighted infrastructure must be removed elsewhere in the county. This keeps the overall maintenance burden from increasing.
• Implement a 2-to-1 Infrastructure Offset Fee. Suburban development would contribute financially to the demolition or removal of outdated roads, gutters, or vacant structures at twice the quantity added. This acknowledges that suburbs do not generate enough long-term tax revenue to pay for their own life-cycle maintenance.
• Update zoning to clearly communicate that greenfield subdivision development is discouraged. This provides upfront clarity to developers, reduces conflict late in the process, and reinforces the county’s long-term financial stability goals.
• Prioritize redevelopment of existing neighborhoods over outward expansion. Incentives, tax credits, or fast-track permitting could be used to steer builders toward reinvestment in existing platted areas where infrastructure already exists but is underutilized.
• Create a countywide “Infrastructure Burden Index” for proposed developments. Before approval, each development would be evaluated on long-term maintenance liability, expected tax generation, and lifecycle cost versus lifecycle revenue. This makes decisions transparent and grounded in math, not optimism.
• Designate farmland as a protected fiscal asset. Recognize farmland as the county’s most reliable, lowest-cost land use—one that supports the tax base rather than eroding it.
These are just examples. The point is not the policy itself, but the principle: if we are going to permit new development, then we must also be working to reduce the long-term maintenance burden that already exists.
This is why committees like this one exist—so that different agencies and citizens can bring their expertise and perspectives to the table. I appreciate being able to share mine today. Ultimately, it is the community’s decision how to use this information. But I hope we will have future opportunities to continue discussing these issues, both within this committee and in broader county conversations.
Thank you for your time, your attention, and your consideration.
Sincerely,
Colby Gray
Delaware County Resident