An_emperor_penguin t1_j25ymr9 wrote
Credit to Rhynhart for pointing out that they city owns thousands of vacant lots that we could build housing on, relying on for profit developers to give away money to poor people is going to run into the very obvious problem that if they don't make money they won't build anything which makes gentrification worse, when the city could just give out the subsidies directly.
MQS has a mixed record, she seems to know that TOD and mixed income bonuses are good ways to increase affordable housing but also implemented a really bad inclusionary zoning bill for her district that prevented a lot of construction because the numbers didn't work. She's been making some good twitter posts recently but we'll see how that goes as the campaign continues
Gyms statement just seems like a buzz word list without substance.
>Parker acknowledged that gentrification — which she defined as “when newer, wealthier residents move into historically poor or working class neighborhoods and price out long-time residents” — is happening in areas of the city many people never thought it would reach.
Parker seems like the one that misses the mark the most. Gentrification is people getting priced out of fancy neighborhoods and moving to the poorer one next door, you can't prevent that with renter protections and trying to force developers to give away cheap housing because there's going to be poorer people moving out/selling anyway. in a growing city any solution is going to be construction based, trying to freeze the city in amber is going to make everything worse
JesusOfBeer t1_j275pzc wrote
Rhynhart is the way
BUrower t1_j29m9q1 wrote
I'd be happy with her or Domb. Anyone who supports building this city up.
JesusOfBeer t1_j29q0zo wrote
Domb is a no-go
BUrower t1_j2ekqxr wrote
I'm curious to know why you feel that way
JesusOfBeer t1_j2erawh wrote
He’s a real estate mogul with a mouth… that’s it.
Rhynhart has actually gone to work while Domb just speaks loudly
[deleted] t1_j27x1ue wrote
[deleted]
_token_black t1_j2b9kkc wrote
>Gyms statement just seems like a buzz word list without substance.
her whole political career is buzz words
_crapitalism t1_j26wrf9 wrote
idk, I felt like Gym's answer was fine. she seemed to me to be saying that we should curb displacement while allowing in new residents to greeting neighborhoods, and creating more affordable housing tax incentives for developers. all that sounds good to me. she has also been a close ally with Jamie Gauthier on the council, and while Gauthier has done some housing things I disagree with, it's clear to me that she is willing to invest and build infrastructure in working class neighborhoods in her district, unlike most other councilmembers in districts with high poverty areas.
An_emperor_penguin t1_j2707l3 wrote
Gauthier has NIMBY'd tons of affordable units in her district and tried to illegally block the Ucity townhome redevelopment instead of actually help the residents. She even helped turn 70 affordable units into a parking lot at 5200 Warrington as she knew the Ucity news about 70 units being lost was about to be announced publicly. She is almost as bad as Clarke and being a "close ally" with her is a big red flag on housing.
Gym was just talking about tax credits and getting everyone to work together for "equity" which is fine I guess, but what does that mean in practice?
_crapitalism t1_j274sw8 wrote
pretty sure the 5200 Warrington development came to be the way it is after RCO negations, and Gauthier put out a statement saying that she was somewhat disappointed that's what it took to build more housing. could be wrong, but thats my memory of it. Gauthier also hasn't been the chronic downzoning, anti-septa, anti-bike, anti-vision zero tyrant that Clarke or Johnson have been, and has been busy getting the protected bike lanes on chestnut all the way through Cobbs creek, and is trying to get a much needed similar one on walnut. she's supported trolley modernization, and she's consistently been one of the better councilmembers on vision zero. that's infrastructure and investment in impoverished communities, and it's what's separates her from the likes of a lot of the rest of the council, and why I'd be happy to have a mayor in her faction.
An_emperor_penguin t1_j27g3au wrote
>Gauthier put out a statement saying that she was somewhat disappointed that's what it took to build more housing
But that's "what it took" because she didn't back the housing! If she told the developer to ignore the NIMBYs that show up to literally everything (to complain about parking) then they could have done that, but she didn't. And in other instances like 48th and Chester (the "poop" building) she explicitly asked the ZBA to deny a variance for affordable apartments so the developers would build luxury townhomes instead.
I do agree that she's been fairly good on non housing issues
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments