Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Giving land away that you could otherwise sell is using tax dollars.
|
I know what you mean but some of city council thinks differently, they would consider it using "indirect" dollars and an easier pill to swallow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Otherwise, I like the idea of having some affordable housing commitments, etc.
Except that the location is so good, would you really want to waste that on social housing? Why not sell it all at market rates, maximize the benefit to the city and then use the funds on social housing where land prices are alot lower?
|
Yeah, that's a good point. However, planners love the concept of mixing in low income housing with both market housing and commercial/retail to create mixed use developments and communities. This avoids the creation of "slums" (sorry I don't really have a better word) that are far from central transit and isolated. A good example of mixed-use is the Woodwards "W" development in Gas town in Vancouver and I'm sure there are others. There are perceived benefits in this concept that offset the lost dollars due to foregoing some development at market rates.
If a portion of the project had obvious social benefits like that it'd make much more sense for them to get support for it. We need low-income housing really badly in this city.