AgdaPkt 2021.01.25 Amended Joint SA PFA

Browse Search

From: - To: GRP -City Council Subject: NO on build out of Sequoia Station and Transit District Study Date: Monday, January 25, 20216:06:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear City Council members, I object and disagree with the proposal that RWC needs both more office space AND housing. I challenge the notion that RWC needs more housing. Many dare I say ALL, of the new 6 story apartment complexes in RWC are NOT full. And the apartments are at very expensive rates. There is a new building still being constructed along EI Camino Real and another planned to go up further south on EI Camino. Downtown RWC is an apartment wasteland. I see many vacancies signs in many smaller apartment complexes. I am against ANY new dense pack housing and office space being built for a whole host of reasons starting with the existing infrastructure which cannot sustain the growth and enable a quality of life that we have all come to enjoy. Traffic is a prime example. RWC only needs more office space and more living spaces IF we want the City to "grow" Given our physical size it seems that we have more than enough people in our town. I am against this fast tracked growth for the sake of revenue. Traffic is already very bad in the Jefferson / EI Camino area. Adding more housing and office space in that area will make it nightmare! I would ask, you the CC, how you will commensurately increase basic services in the City departments to support the addition people/infrastructure while maintaining their quality service to existing residents (0). In other words, if this were to be approved, HOW will services to the existing RWC residents be better (in concrete terms ... not some diversity BS) as a result of the revenue increase from additional office space and apartment. You the CC wants these efforts to increase the tax base. In my opinion you should first have to demonstrate HOW this improves my/our quality of life. Lastly, and this is what I really object to .... 99% of ALL these housing units that have gone in are apartments. This means NO chance for people occupying these apartments to participate in equity earning. Now why would the council members, all of whom own houses, support efforts that prevent people from the gains that come in owning a home. Why aren't at least 50% these places, 'condo's/townhomes, where the dwellers would have a chance for a piece of the American dream? Use these type of places as jumping off points for single family homes. It could be done if you had the collective will to do so. Sincerely, Kris Forbes