In a message dated 12/18/01 11:42:28 AM Central Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< How 
 would you view the following three examples of planned new housing:
 
 100+ units planned for going up at the corner of Franklin and Portland
 76 units very likely going up on Franklin and 15th Avenue
 900 units going up over at Near North (now called "Heritage Park")
 
 Should we stop progress on these projects to avoid overbuilding?
 
 Gregory Luce
 North Phillips (work)
  >>

   Keith says;    I would presume that the "nonprofit" developments proffered 
as affordable housing for low income people will cost a pasha's ransom to 
build, say in the 120,000-180,000 range with "nonprofiteers" taking 
incredible fees every whichway from our government tax dollars. I hope 
Victoria Heller will tell us more about how this is done and who really pays 
and profits! The for-profit action will get huge subsidies, too.  Union 
labor, mainly white guys from the suburbs and beyond, will build these 
monuments in our depressed neighborhoods. Mostly bypassing the neighborhood 
employment/income component, that should be requisite to neighborhood 
development, will mean inner city residents will miss out on the income 
needed to live in any market rate monuments. Also called "urban renewal", 
these developments have, or will, push people out of there existing homes and 
property and they most likely won't be around for the ribbon cutting, cake 
eating and move-in experience. The existing property owners, long or short 
term will be "eminently doomed" through "taking" by eminent domain; they will 
be paid in old-bad neighborhood dollars right at turnaround time. Great 
example is MCDA Grain Belt plan, now perhaps quashed, to push out the old 
timers at government tax-dollar turn around time. After the developers use 
our public wealth tax dollars to create these monuments, the homes will go 
on-line into the rental housing market as direct and modern competition to 
adjacent or nonadjacent existing rental property. Basically, the taxes from 
property invested in, and held by, small business people called landlord will 
fund the subsidized competition. As the subsidized competition prevails, 
attracting the best tenants and longest rent dollars, unsubsidized private 
investors will be more likely to falter. Some property owners are familiar 
with your strategies Greg Luce, through Project 504, for separating faltering 
landlords from their property rights, cash flow and buildings. I suggest we 
allow a free and open market place to help satisfy our city housing needs and 
move away from huge socialistic "nonprofit" and expensive monument building 
and social engineering. I doubt anyone would disagree with me, right?
  Keith Reitman, Near North
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to