Barbara Lickness wrote:
snip
Greg Luce is employed to work with lower income
families that have housing needs. It's understandable
that this area would be his focus. However, this city
needs housing at many different levels up to and
including high end luxury homes if we are going to
accommodate all the people moving here in the next
10-15 years and beyond.
If a report already exists that defines the amount of
new housing we need and where it should be placed
coupled with what we already have and its location, I
would LOVE a copy. It would be very helpful to many
of the neighborhoods I work with.
If a report doesn't exist, we need one to guide us.
David Piehl writes:
I agree with Barb and CM LIlligren's statements about essentially forecasting
development needs and building to forecast. However, I would also point out
that forecasting, though a useful tool, is only one piece of the equation.
Forecasts, by nature, are just educated guesses. Forecasts will almost always
be wrong, but goods ones will identify real trends that need reaction. Consider
the recent changes to the metro demographic forecast for the next few decades as
a case in point. Forecasts are a snapshot of a particular moment in time, and
many factors can have a big effect on the trends. As important as forecasts are
items such as desired density, desired income mix, desired level of city
services, city budgets, etc.
It's also important to keep in mind that particularly in the midst of a housing
shortage, every housing unit added benefits all ranges of income. I say that
because it is clear to me that a main driver of the current lack of affordable
housing is the general shortage of housing which has caused formerly affordable
units to be bid up in price beyond the means of huge segments of the population.
The addition of higher end housing alleviates the shortage just as much as the
addition of affordable housing, often without public subsidy. The on-going
problem with subsidizing affordable housing is how to keep it affordable and
still be fair to the occupants and taxpayers; i.e. do renters in affordable
units have to move if and when their income goes beyond the range defined for
their unit? Additionally, for affordable homeownership - a house may be
subsidized to make it affordable, then it goes on the market in a few years and
suddenly it's market rate housing selling for double or more the subsidized
acquisition price - no longer the affordable unit that the taxpayer paid for.
It's a complicated issue, and as CM Lilligren noted, only good, comprehensive
planning will successfully address it - not knee-jerk reactions to individual
situations.
David Piehl
Central
______________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message is private and confidential
information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work
product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of
the message. Thank you.
_______________________________________
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
