While I have obvious disagreements with Keith Reitman and others on the list, I appreciate their continued dialogue and think a couple of things Keith mentions warrant a serious look:
1. Developer fees--while I am not opposed to the necessity of developer fees, I'd like to see more about how much is paid and whether the fees are justified. It may be a good idea, for any publicly subsidized project, for the developer to have a public "disclosure" statement of some sort about the fee--maybe that actually occurs, but I dunno--anyone have an idea if something of the sort is done here? 2. Community development work associated with the projects; that is, what is being done to include local community members in the construction work, bids, and all other associated work with the project? Keith is right to object to massive projects that do not involve more localized labor. I think City Pages had a recent story about this issue. Gregory Luce North Phillips (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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
