Kudos to you sir. I couldn't agree more. How can Minneapolitans and St. Paulites preach to the suburbs about not approving "affordable" housing proposals when they veto them here for a whole host of reasons which can only be categorized as social engineering?
On a similar note, is not the housing crisis simply a matter of a shortage of housing overall, not a shortage of so-called "affordable" housing? All housing is affordable to someone or else it would be vacant. Is it not simply that whenever there is less than enough housing units to go around that those of the least economic means are obviously going to be the ones priced out of the market? Would not a policy of merely supporting the construction of the most possible units be the best approach rather than attempting to mandate how much units should rent for? It seems to me that if there were enough housing units built to match the number of potential households, there would then be a housing unit that would be affordable to each household whether they be rich, middle-class, or low-income. I don't believe that property owners would tolerate a double-digit vacancy rate without lowering their rents to what the market (i.e. renters) are willing and able to pay. Correct me if my reasoning is flawed, but it would seem that attempts to ensure that a certain percentage of new housing units are affordable to households with the lowest incomes is going to squeeze out middle-class households that otherwise might have occupied those units if they were sold or leased at the market rate. I just think people should realize that these forced subsidizations come on the backs of the middle-class and not the rich. No rich person is going to be priced out of the market for a nice, clean apartment because of these affordable housing developments. But what about the working person (or family) who makes just too much to qualify for a "affordable" unit but can hardly afford a place without assistance? Where do we draw the line as to how many households we are going to subsidize? Paul Lambie Lowry Hill ############################################### Snip What possible basis could there be > to deny the variance/upzoning for a project that serves the middle class, > but grant it for the very same project because slightly poorer people will > live there? If there is any basis, wouldn't that allow neighborhoods, or > entire cities, to do exactly the reverse? Could Lynnhurst adopt a policy to > deny variances and upzonings unless they kept rents above "affordable" > levels? Could Edina adopt such a policy? Could Willard-Hay adopt such a > policy, on the basis that putting more affordable housing there is further > segregating our population? Several cities (I'm not making this up) will > not grant approvals to housing projects if the developer can't show that the > units will pay for themselves in terms of taxes paid for services required. > This is an absolute bar to affordable housing. > If Kingfield can adopt the policy you cite (deny if it's not affordable > enough), then what is to keep other jurisdictions from adopting similar > "policies du jour" to combat the social crises of the day? Would you grant > a variance to a pillar of the community and deny the same to a newcomer? > Would you grant it to a bank-financed project but deny it to a cash buyer? > Grant it to a project with public art but deny it to a project with a > swingset instead? I can't even think what's at the end of the slippery > slope you are headed down, but it seems to be the same logic that would lead > to granting it for a U.S. citizen but not a non-citizen, or granting it for > a Christian but not an atheist (or a Muslim), or granting it for an owner > who promises to give the profits to charity but not an owner who will use > them for his children's college. Would you grant it for an abortion clinic? > Do you think that people in Minnesota's pro-life hotbeds should be able > to deny zoning approvals for their social engineering reasons? Could a city that bars > "miscegenation" force a developer to keep apartments single-race? Berlet > residents? Bar unmarried couples from cohabitating? You may think these > are outlandish, but an unmarried cohabitation ban was litigated last year, > and I guarantee thousands of cities out there would do everything in their > power to deny approvals to any building aimed at serving GLBT folks. > These things are all completely unrelated to the impact the building has on > its surroundings. They are unrelated to any public health, safety, or > welfare factor. Once you start regulating for what you believe is the > social good, you open the door to every other interpretation of what is the > social good. I assure you, David, that kind of logic will exclude much more > affordable housing than Minneapolis can ever produce. It gives people the > fuel to say - "Minneapolis bends zoning laws to favor the social environment > they want, so why can't we do the same to get the environment we want?" > So I would urge you to be pro-active in recruiting developers and in trying > to help affordable housing with whatever money you have, but you cannot > discriminate by granting approvals to the same building for "noble" goals > but denying approvals if the building doesn't serve those goals. If > Kingfield truly has such a "affordable/grant, market/deny" policy, I would > urge you to drop it and view zoning approvals on their land-use merits, not > on your version of the social good. > > Neal Blanchett > Lynnhurst __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards� http://movies.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________ 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
