I can see how you would walk away from a meeting with that feeling (that elderly aren’t welcome), even though I don’t feel that was really what the neighbors were getting at. It has become clear to me that any proposed federally subsidized housing for the elderly or low-income is going to be a sensitive topic, I just wish the city would have been more up front about their desires for this parcel. Yes, it was visualized as such in the south-east side plan, but let’s be honest, not every resident is going to participate in those plans, or download the plans and pay attention to all of the details. You can be sure I will now. Also, regarding that plan, I don’t recall a survey being sent out to South East side residents seeking their input for the plan. I do recall receiving and filling one out for downtown. Wonder if I missed it or one just wasn’t done.

Also – re: property taxes. Realize that as a renter, property tax increases are not always passed on to you. When my taxes and water bills were going up $400 to $600 per year, I certainly wasn’t able to raise my rent by $30 – $50 a month every year. So a lot of times, the owners are absorbing that cost, and feeling the pinch more than you would as a renter.

My info was from the notes I took at the presentation. I could have it backwards, but I thought the woman from Quorum Architects said 12 single family, 8 townhouses (so 16 units), and 130 apartments, so my bad, 158 (kept thinking 12 townhouses for 24 units).

Also, where are you getting your info? 168 units? Every article published on this says 140. Here are a few examples:
- http://bayviewcompass.com/archives/965
- http://www.jsonline.com/business/44567537.html

120 senior units, 12 single-family and 8 townhouses.

And actually it does not say “maximize the benefit to the city” (what would that mean anyways?), it says “Expand tax base and maximize the return to the City”. To me, return means money – return means property tax income. When I hear “federally subsidized housing”, I don’t think of that as maximizing return. Now, it is correct that high-density housing could mean more units to base a tax on and could generate more revenue than say, 44 single-family homes at that same site. But when that question was posted to DCD – what is the differential? – they also couldn’t provide an answer for that.

I don’t see why one would be offended by a discussion of tax base. Do you own a home? What it means to me is that in this time of state, city, and county government budget crunches, I want our city to do the financially prudent thing and be sure that a development will generate property tax income for them. There were some in the audience who feel that this property could end up as a tax exempt property (the senior housing portion), just as Lincoln Ave is, which again in the RFP is listed as a prohibited use. As a homeowner, this is a very valid discussion to me, as my tax bill had been going up 10 – 12% many years.
I would assume the offense is taken by placing a higher value on the need for senior housing than on the need to increase property tax revenues.

And yes, the debate did talk about quality senior housing. But you could just as easily say there isn’t much quality single-family housing in Bay View. Homes are 80 to 100 years old in this part of the city. Many were absentee landlord owned for years and require a lot of investment to get them up to standards.

The RFP called for 75-150 units. The proposal is for roughly 168, so definitely on the high-end, according to the homeowners in the area, who will be directly impacted by the development.