AgdaPkt 2018-12-17 Joint Special

Browse Search

I - I'm for affordable housing but not by increasing living density. I support this through rent control measures. Most of the new housing that is being built is not "affordable" when rent is starting at 4,000/month. @ 1 NO MORE BUILDING!! Beyond congested already!! 1 budget is already upside down. How would the city pay for long term maintenance? 1: The city should NOT be a landlord. It could perhaps lease out the land with the condition that ALL must be priced to rent or sell at a fraction of market rates. 2 "affordable" needs to be defined. I read that 1 bedroom apartments in East Palo Alto are $1,900+ a month. For an average person (secretary, mechanic, retail or restaurant worker) that isn't affordable. Please define affordable. How will the units remain affordable? Will the city own the housing? 1 As long as the housing is a mix. Having itjust be pubic housing has unintended consequences. Use the market part to maintain and generate more housing in other areas. 1 1 strongly support support building more housing, but I would need to know what use the proposed land is currently being put to. I would never sacrifice existing parks or nature preserves for more housing, for example. 1 - Redwood City should change the zoning code to allow more / higher density hosing to be built. The city should not build housing- they'll just over spend and screw it up. The city should govern not develop - loosen governmental regulations and allow the market to build housing less expensively. 1 companies should be building where people can afford to live! I I need more info on what city owned land, what it's currently used for, who qualifies for affordable housing/how it will be partitioned, and for how long the leases are. If it has anything to do with building on wetlands though my answer is an emphatic NO@ 2. new housing developments should not be restricted to affordable housing projects alone and include regular housing projects and benefit everyone.