Laserfiche WebLink
31 have mixed feelings. I might be ok with selling unneeded public land to a developer of low <br />income housing. I'm not ok with the City being a developer/land lord. <br />3 who ends up running the housing? City? Yes. I'm not for private ownership of these properties. <br />3. This is a challenging one. I'd say yes if it is surplus and there are no other needed uses like <br />public works, parks, etc. for the property <br />3.1 think I would need to know more about the city -owned land (where, how much, etc.) AND <br />what would be proposed for building to decide. The way I see it, they're both beneficial to the <br />community, and plans for one would need to outweigh benefits of the other. <br />3 - don't know because which land? What's it already being used for? What will the building <br />quality be? What other infrastructure effects will there be? Certainly it should be discussed. Too <br />many factors to make a snap decision. <br />3 we need more housing but we need to use the resources already available! Why is the apt <br />building on woodside still left abandoned and burned out?! <br />3 the question is too vague. What is meant by "city -owned land?" Where is the land? What is it <br />currently used for? <br />3 what is the cost to rebuilding or renovating on used land first, including land owners' stake? <br />3 1 don't have enough information to make an educated decision... where is the city owned <br />land? What is it currently being used for? <br />3 don't know enough to make a good decision. <br />3. I'd have to know more details about it. <br />� 1 <br />:� 's ■ ■ &; y 'r ■ Ir <br />IS ■■ ■ <br />© 2018 Voca Advocacy Inc, Redwood City, California <br />