But undeveloped land in the parish is growing scarce. Once out of sight and out of mind for most residents, new development bordered many of their backyards in 2006. Fears included drainage problems, home devaluation, heavy traffic in quiet subdivisions and the motives of developers.

Many neighborhoods organized in 2006 like never before, sending large groups to Planning Commission and City-Parish Council meetings. Some came well-informed about the law. Others less so, but few, if any, would easily back down.

'Why not tell us?'

Property values in the Garden District range from $200,000 to $500,000, and neighbors worry about how a new subdivision could affect those prices.

They know Mouton's Sugar Hill Estates will have 17 lots, but they are in the dark about the rest. Rumors range from a trailer park, to upscale townhomes that will begin at $200,000.

Mouton won't talk with them. He's also refused to answer questions from The Daily Advertiser during the past two months.

"If I was putting up something good within another neighborhood, I'd be proud to talk about that," Wingate said. "But why not tell us?"

The Planning Commission approved Mouton's project in November. Residents felt shortchanged, and appealed to City-Parish Council, claiming many of them were never informed of the development, and wanted answers out of Mouton.

The group's aggressive push paid off. The Council ruled Tuesday that Mouton, the neighbors and a mediator from the Planning Department have four weeks to sit down and hash out a compromise.

Coming to compromise

Capstone Development Corp. offered to contribute $200,000 to maintain aesthetics of the historic Freetown neighborhood, where it's building a 205-unit college apartment complex.

It was a show of good will and commitment to the area, said company President Michael Mouron.

"I think what's good for Freetown is good for our development, and conversely what's good for our development is good for Freetown," he said. "Like any neighbor, it's good to be neighborly."

Istvan Berkeley, associate professor of philosophy at UL, led a group of residents who fought Capstone's college apartment complex this summer.

The Planning Commission didn't approve the project, citing "smart growth" concerns that the traditional neighborhood would be hurt. The City-Parish Council later approved the project, which is now under construction.

"You can't win against big money," he said. "Sometimes, you have to fight, even though you know you're going to lose."

"Pro-growth" tensions

"They were supportive, rational, helpful and fair-minded," he said.

But residents on East Willow Street share a complaint with other groups that have dealt with the Planning Commission: They're too "pro-growth."

"It feels like the Planning Commission has their own agenda," Wingate said. "They don't care about the residents, they only care about the developers."

Residents on Braquet Road in Carencro scorned the commission for approving a 32-lot subdivision to be built on eight acres between their lots. The City-Parish Council has final approval, but residents felt it was just another "pro-growth" group, said attorney Jayson Haile, and skipped the appeal process altogether.

They're now trying to stop developer Theresa Thibodeaux with a lawsuit. Increasingly, residents are turning to the courts to hear that cause.

The importance of interconnectivity

"We're starting to crowd people in," said John Barras, chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. "At this point, the interconnectivity is what people are screaming against."

A major tenet of "smart growth" is interconnectivity of roads. It's something Tony Tramel, director of Traffic and Transportation, pushes the commission to require for new subdivisions whenever possible. Connecting roads is part of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Lafayette's blueprint for developing land.

It's also one of the biggest reasons residents protest.

Subdivisions may have "stub-outs," or dead-end streets. The stubs are meant to be lengthened when future development happens nearby, Tramel said, but residents don't always see it that way.

Political pressure

One dead-end, Demas Drive, was particularly old, and too narrow for the traffic that would come from the subdivision, neighbors said. They complained that "cut-through traffic" would use their streets to avoid busy outlying roads, and endanger children at play.

The Planning Commission agreed, and removed the requirements. Neighbors were happy to keep their quiet street, and the developer was happy to not spend extra on construction to connect with the stubs.

Pleasing the few hurts the city as a whole, Tramel said. Lafayette doesn't have the luxury to keep every quiet cul de sac anymore, Tramel said. The more roads are interconnected, the less traffic will jam on major thoroughfares.

"But if a significant number of people show up to a meeting, it is very difficult for our council to vote against the people there," Tramel said. "I believe we're at a very interesting crossroads: We need to either change how we do things - meaning abide by the rules - or get rid of them."

The Planning Commission evaluates every proposal by the same rules and regulations, said Development Manager Rebekke Raines.

But they always have the right to consider overall public health, she added. Residents who come to speak can be the commission's main source.

Which way to grow?

Unhappy with Planning, Zoning & Codes Director Eleanor Bouy's lack of enthusiasm for their situation, they'll schedule a meeting with City-Parish President Joey Durel.

Ultimately, residents said they're not against growth, they just want to feel they have a say in how it happens.

This summer in south Lafayette, residents in St. Michael's Cove and Audubon Trace subdivisions fought a state law to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

A proposed subdivision between those two didn't have enough favor from the Planning Commission in December 2005 to even get a vote. It was technically killed, Barras said.

But the state law allowed the subdivision to gaJoyeux Noël et Bonne Année!in automatic approval, once it sat stagnant for 60 days.

Residents say the rule should be changed. Barras agrees. It's the type of confusion that fuels the fire of disgruntled citizens.

"I don't think growth should be stopped, but it should be better planned by our city council and government," said Kevin Molony, resident of St. Michael's Cove. "Our citizens are being penalized because we're allowing developers to do whatever they want to do."