Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:
How exactly will the community center and library be build out?
What amenities will be provided?
Will there be any green space left reserved?
Will there be a playground?
Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt?
Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now?
Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood?
But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing.
You do get to ask those questions. There’s a whole democratic system of government whereby you get to influence the answers.
This is exactly what ChCh residents are up in arms. The existence of some kind of process in no way ensures that we will like the outcomes. We feel like the city will end up doing whatever they want no matter the opposition. And on top of everything we’ll be vilified for being “racist”.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:
How exactly will the community center and library be build out?
What amenities will be provided?
Will there be any green space left reserved?
Will there be a playground?
Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt?
Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now?
Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood?
But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing.
You do get to ask those questions. There’s a whole democratic system of government whereby you get to influence the answers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That would be a great location for affordable housing. It has easy access to transportation and amenities.
Affordable housing does not = homeless. I know a public defender who got into the properties at City Center.
But there is no way to only get the “good” low-to-mid income people. If there was, no one would be objecting.
Just wow.
Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:
How exactly will the community center and library be build out?
What amenities will be provided?
Will there be any green space left reserved?
Will there be a playground?
Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt?
Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now?
Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood?
But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing.
Anonymous wrote:I live a few blocks from the proposed site and read the listserve regularly. Granted the listserve may not be a fully accurate representation of how neighbors feel, but the article’s claim that “Most residents agree the site needs to be updated, but the addition of affordable housing has proved divisive” Is absolutely misleading in the most unfair, nasty and self-serving way. That is not at all the way people in the neighborhood feel. What we are sensing is that the city is hiding behind a purported objective of increasing the number of affordable housing to give giveaways to developers, and, in the process, sacrificing the existing positive attributes of the site (mainly open space). The key here is how many affordable units will the neighborhood actually get in exchange for a massive building on the community center site. My understanding is that in practice we will only get a handful. So why don’t we just build those few affordable units and not build the remaining luxury units that the developers salivate over (or build fewer of them) and keep the open space instead? That’s the approach that would satisfy me at least.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I live a few blocks from the proposed site and read the listserve regularly. Granted the listserve may not be a fully accurate representation of how neighbors feel, but the article’s claim that “Most residents agree the site needs to be updated, but the addition of affordable housing has proved divisive” Is absolutely misleading in the most unfair, nasty and self-serving way. That is not at all the way people in the neighborhood feel. What we are sensing is that the city is hiding behind a purported objective of increasing the number of affordable housing to give giveaways to developers, and, in the process, sacrificing the existing positive attributes of the site (mainly open space). The key here is how many affordable units will the neighborhood actually get in exchange for a massive building on the community center site. My understanding is that in practice we will only get a handful. So why don’t we just build those few affordable units and not build the remaining luxury units that the developers salivate over (or build fewer of them) and keep the open space instead? That’s the approach that would satisfy me at least.
Because selling the luxury units is what pays for the construction of the affordable units. That’s the model. And it creates a mixed income building, which people think improves the likelihood that it will maintain itself. What you’re describing is a housing project.
Exactly which is why I suggested building fewer of them, not none at all. How about we bid the project out, establish a minimum number of affordable units that must be included and see which developer is willing to take the project on with the least massive building? Tell my why something like this wouldn’t work.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That would be a great location for affordable housing. It has easy access to transportation and amenities.
Affordable housing does not = homeless. I know a public defender who got into the properties at City Center.
But there is no way to only get the “good” low-to-mid income people. If there was, no one would be objecting.
Anonymous wrote:That would be a great location for affordable housing. It has easy access to transportation and amenities.
Affordable housing does not = homeless. I know a public defender who got into the properties at City Center.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I live a few blocks from the proposed site and read the listserve regularly. Granted the listserve may not be a fully accurate representation of how neighbors feel, but the article’s claim that “Most residents agree the site needs to be updated, but the addition of affordable housing has proved divisive” Is absolutely misleading in the most unfair, nasty and self-serving way. That is not at all the way people in the neighborhood feel. What we are sensing is that the city is hiding behind a purported objective of increasing the number of affordable housing to give giveaways to developers, and, in the process, sacrificing the existing positive attributes of the site (mainly open space). The key here is how many affordable units will the neighborhood actually get in exchange for a massive building on the community center site. My understanding is that in practice we will only get a handful. So why don’t we just build those few affordable units and not build the remaining luxury units that the developers salivate over (or build fewer of them) and keep the open space instead? That’s the approach that would satisfy me at least.
Because selling the luxury units is what pays for the construction of the affordable units. That’s the model. And it creates a mixed income building, which people think improves the likelihood that it will maintain itself. What you’re describing is a housing project.