Laserfiche WebLink
R B - but the city must actually demand these improvements and follow up that they are completed. <br />All too often there is lots of talk and promises, and then excuses why they did not happen. <br />+2 B It makes sense for developers to improve the city. The biggest issue with this scheme is that it can <br />invite corruption... that's why it's good the city has clearly defined community benefits with a point <br />system so elected officials do not have to arbitrarily determine what is or isn't "good enough" for the city <br />to grant extra density. <br />+2 B. The city should secure funding for grade separations at whipple and Brewster before allowing <br />more density. Developers should pay for it. We have enough parks <br />+z B But these answers are loaded. Certain types/ amounts should require it. For example, luxury <br />builds. But if someone is developing straight up actual affordable (all units are affordable rather than <br />some tiny percentage is), them maybe not. <br />+2 B. Major improvements and including low cost and median cost units for teachers and other district <br />employees <br />9 B - developers are benefiting from higher value per sq ft of land which is limited so they should <br />provide benefits for the increased congestion that density brings <br />R B We need housing density in walkable neighborhoods like downtown, but these have impact on <br />public commons such as streets, parks, and so on. Developers should bear the cost of keeping those at <br />at least their same levels per capita. Otherwise, they are reaping the profits and passing the expenses on <br />to us. <br />That said, I don't think that we should demand a much higher standard, because doing so will price this <br />housing out of reach for even more people. <br />+D B yes, but community benefits should be defined as broadly as possible <br />+t Yes!! Absolutely! When we were remodeling our home, we were required to install a new fire hydrant <br />for the benefit of the community. The construction companies need to give back to the community as <br />well, but on a larger scale since their impact is much larger. <br />R B -absolutely developers should help pay for community benefits, especially for very low income <br />housing and park space. And PWC should be building more condos instead of just rental units! <br />Homeowners will have more of a stake in the city <br />+1 B these questions are becoming way too broad. This could have been broken down more to <br />establish which benefits would be important. My response would be that all would need to be in place <br />and that the building would need to be stepped up incrementally, have sidewalk green/public space. <br />