Laserfiche WebLink
A. We need more units desperately. It should be as easy as possible to build more housing units. <br />Requiring community benefits for office is fine, but thejobs housing imbalance is incredible and much <br />of that is because it is difficult to build housing <br />A, Every improvement to our city cannot be a shakedown of the young and the newcomers. Density is <br />conducive to walking, biking and vibrant, beautiful, economically resilient cities. Density IS a community <br />benefit. <br />A - but there should be incentives to provide benefits <br />M <br />Increasing density centered on public transit is community benefit. Local governments should get their <br />act together and make public transit faster, cheaper and more convenient than car travel. Imagine how <br />millions of rapid rides daily, for about $5 per ride. <br />A - Build more housing! Now! Denser! Quit sticking it to developers and get it done!! We need more <br />housing NOW! <br />A. However I do feel like there should be some other incentive for the city improvements portion <br />Awe desperately need to increase housing density, don't add conditions <br />A) (Community benefits would be great, especially more low-income housing, but housing density <br />downtown, near transportation, is desperately needed) <br />'Yes, only increase density if developers pay for city improvements' comments: <br />+is B. Affordable and under market housing for teachers, law enforcement, and others who work and <br />serve our city. <br />+72 B - Specifically, tied to more AFFORDABLE housing. <br />+tt B affordable housing shouldn't be a project but also a priority. It's absurd how the city is no longer <br />taking into consideration all the non -tech workers and the natives of Redwood City <br />+io B especially more affordable housing <br />+3 B support for an art center <br />