My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2018-12-17 Joint Special
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2018
>
AgdaPkt 2018-12-17 Joint Special
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2018 1:26:47 PM
Creation date
12/18/2018 9:28:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
12/17/2018
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
480
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
S. It should be done as intelligently as possible, of course, but oh my god yes!!! This is desperately <br />needed. <br />41 think all residents would benefit from this, especially if the land isn't being used for much. <br />Don't take over natural space but otherwise it should be used. It isn't clear if the city would be <br />the one building the housing and I don't think they should be. Alternatively the city could sell <br />this land with the stipulation that the developer build affordable housing on it. <br />5. Strongly support. IF the city had required that all of the market rate housing developed in <br />Redwood City ALSO included INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, at the time of <br />construction, then we would have less urgency to build it now on "City Land".I might point out, <br />too, that in the wording of this question's "OPPONENT'S VIEW, it states: city land is intended to <br />benefit all residents..:'and NOT THE COMPARATIVELY SMALL NUMBER THAT WOULD LIVE IN <br />AFFORDABLE HOUSING". That "comparatively small number" is growing by leaps and bounds in <br />this city. Just how comparatively small is it really, the current statistical percentage?[ can think <br />of no better use than affordable housing for city land. It may slow down the frightening rate of <br />gentrification this city is experiencing!We have dragged our feet on this issue. We saw it coming <br />years ago and took very little remedial action. All the while, it has increased to staggering <br />proportions. People move out of RWC because it has become the only survival option.USE CITY <br />LAND. What better, or more necessary, use for it is justifiable? <br />5 Build it. People need affordable housing. Distribute location of affordable housing across the <br />city. Also, make some moderate number of affordable units mandatory in new big apartment <br />complexes. <br />5 Educators, low-income adults, and low-income families would highly benefit from affordable <br />housing built on city land. <br />5. When a starter home costs $1M, it's time to do something. <br />4.1 would like to see a map of where this land is and I don't think all should be up for grabs for <br />affordable housing but I certainly support a portion being dedicated to this. <br />5 1 think we and should think about adding affordable units wherever possible. If we are <br />rebuilding a parking garage, why not some affordable units on the top floor. A new rec center <br />could have a few units on one side. Let's be creative to find ways of creating affordable housing. <br />5- that is our region's problem <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.