York_Villain t1_j64jigt wrote

How many of those affordable units are 2 bedroom apartments? How many of them are 3? The developer randomly announces that they want to offer 50% but then also pulled the project immediately afterwards. Totally posturing because the developer knows that the councilmember was asking for a better allocation of the units and not just a percentage. So now 50% looks a lot better on patch.com than just a bunch of studio apartments that actual families can't live in.


York_Villain t1_j64j5gf wrote

Yeah. The developer is taking their ball and going home.

The councilmember said they'd vote yes if the developer allocated some of the apartments as 2 and 3 bedroom ones. The developer pulled the project instead. Who is being unreasonable in that scenario?

Lastly, if the developer is so strapped for cash, then why are they now proposing a low margin parking lot? That says they aren't strapped for cash.


York_Villain t1_j64iswv wrote

But that's not what's happening.

Developer: "We have apartments for families"
Councilmember: "The only low income apartments are studios and 1 bedrooms. Familiies need 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. I'll approve if some of the apartments are 2 and 3 bedroom units. "
Developer: "Fuck you I'm pulling the development myself and now proposing a parking lot."


York_Villain t1_j64iltm wrote

I'm not saying I only want apartments that fit my particular specifications. I never once said this. What I'm saying is that some of the apartments allocated to low income housing should be 2 and 3 bedrooms as opposed to studios and 1 bedrooms. Because actual familes live in multi-room homes. The largest apartment for low income tenants in that development was a 1 bedroom.

That was literally the one thing that the councilmember was asking for. For some two and three bedroom apartments. Instead the developer does this. So who is being unreasonable?

Do we need housing? Absolutely. But there is no reason why we shouldn't have some minimum standards.


York_Villain t1_j64dlbr wrote

You're rooting for a free license for developers to do whatever they want. Otherwise known as an unregulated market.

Who says it's not profitable to allocate some 2 and 3 bedroom apartments? Are the margins that narrow? Because they aren't. Why should we allow an unregulated mess because some investment fund that owns the majority stake of a development company sees a return on their investment in 25 years as opposed to 20? Trust me, they're all earning.

I want more apartments too. I want them everywhere. But I want it done responsibly. That's what the councilmember is asking for. Instead you got people calling her a racist for asking for it.


York_Villain t1_j6443iv wrote

Good. The low income apartments proposed in that building were only studios and one bedrooms. That does not benefit families. The councilmember asked for the developer for larger apartments to also be allocated for lower income tenants and the developer responded by pulling the project entirely and whining on patch.com nonstop.