Laserfiche WebLink
3 Not sure how to solve that problem. <br />31 need more data to lean one way or the other <br />Problem is made worse by no stable system for people waiting to get an apt. Have to apply to <br />each separate bldg no one list for all! And then the lists close so <br />3 it depends on current land use and location. The city should keep the land, a have developed <br />drvelop the land, and the city charge a ground lease to the developer. This will allow for housing <br />to be built while the city has a continuous revenue stream. <br />3 as long as it's high density buildings that are extremely tall I'm all for it! <br />3.1 definitely think we need more affordable housing for the good of the whole city. But what <br />city owned land do you mean? Our parks? I need specific examples <br />3 city owned land should be used for public benefit and there should be a public discussion <br />about the highest and best use for the land. Certainly affordable housing would be a major <br />option along with parks, sports fields, community centers and other options. Affordable housing <br />would be an important component of any public property. <br />3 - I'd be open to it, but the devil is in the details <br />3.1 think if I knew what city land is mostly used for now it would help. I all still haven't seen any <br />affordable housing that's affordable. But in principle I do agree that more housing is better. <br />3 everything needs to be done with balance. <br />3.1 am for affordable housing distributed more equally throughout the city, and not clustered in <br />one school district. So I am a 5 on finding affordable housing solutions, especially for families. I <br />am a 1 on taking public land, most used by people who need affordable housing to fill the <br />affordable housing gap. <br />3. City owned land where? We need affordable housing for sure as real estate is way over priced. <br />Not sure city should build unless they will be the landlords. <br />