Laserfiche WebLink
+t Need parks downtown <br />R B. Developers should provide and fund adequate parking for all new residential and commercial <br />development before anything else. <br />+t B Good neighborhoods are notjust about affordability, but also quality of the environment. <br />+t Redwood City has been growing rapidly with no benefit to our public schools. Developers should be <br />required to provide significant investment in education and low income housing. <br />2 B. We need more housing, and with that comes the need for more public spaces, child care, and <br />other community benefits. <br />B - if developers aren't allowed to increase density, then where will the monies come from for <br />community benefits? No one is paying enough to maintain existing infrastructure - should we require <br />everyone to pay their fair share? <br />B- the city allows developers to overbuild. Meanwhile us residents get stuck with the same lacking <br />infrastructure. <br />B One way of stopping the horrible cycle of profit at the cost of working class folks is to require <br />developers in our community to demonstrate a commitment to the community. <br />B - but it seems there must be some exceptions depending on what type of business it is ... like a non- <br />profit <br />B <br />I would prefer C, downtown RWC is hideous. No green space anywhere! <br />If there is increased density then develop must payfor city improvements, <br />B, developer funds used by the city to give priority to housing people experiencing homelessness in <br />good, desirable homes <br />B only if the city improvements will actually benefit existing community members, not contribute to <br />further push out of long time residents and just create a nicer community for new affluent people <br />moving in <br />B, very close to choosing "c". Not an easy decision <br />