Friday, July 1, 2016

More on Town Center Zoning Change

Amey Radcliffe gives us some more things to ponder:

1. Again and again when discussing housing affordability, we are hearing the perspective of the developer - how it costs too much, "kills the economics", and is not feasible. We are expected to simply nod and accept this as fact without seeing any profit and loss statements. How much profit is enough? When do the needs of the people outweigh the needs for financial gain? What about other costs to society of people who need housing but can't afford it? Small business owners know that there are times when you only break even, or maybe take a loss, but that is weighed against the long term benefits of building community. 2.  The notion of "good planning" brought up several times by Mr. Bradley lacks the kind of innovative thinking that is happening around the world (where all the same challenges exist). Where short term gain is traded for long-term benefit, where building cost is reduced by creative solutions, such as thinking small with unit size and thinking big with ideas of pre-fab, unusual materials and a paradigm shift away from the old business as usual. 3. What will transpire at the public meeting on July 6th? Will we be given a power point promotion of the benefits of a zoning change? Will we need to write our questions on small pieces of paper and otherwise asked just to listen? I certainly hope not.

1 comment:

  1. your comments speak directly to the class issues raised by Miro's entire gentrification agenda. This, along with other moral issues, is the 800 pd gorilla in the room. David White admitted as much when he stated that the preference being given to the 1% in all these projects would have to be taken up "down the road". Nope, they get taken up now. That's how we win this