Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj
I get your point, I'm simply asking if it is necessarily a bad thing. The "old school" policy was great for property owners on the northside, but it also heavily contributed to some of our city's biggest problems (lack of investment in certain areas, significant segregation, high and persistent violence).
Does Milwaukee Avenue "need" more TOD units? I am all for density, so in a vacuum I would argue "yes". But in our current environment, I think there could be benefit of spreading out some of those units into places like near west side and near south side. Increased density in those areas will benefit the city more in the long run than increased density in Logan Square or Wicker Park.
I don't think our Alderpeople are actually thinking about it that way, but it could be a positive consequence of their silly policies.
|
I don't disagree that it could be a "good thing" from that perspective, but in the context of the ongoing "affordability" and "gentrification" debate, it has the exact opposite effect as intended.
The issue I have constantly lately seems to be that people can't separate me the businessperson from me the person. These policies, despite being supported by mobs of jeering idiots who think it hurts businesses like mine, are actually THE best possible outcome of the last election for me. All of the aldermen on the NW were replaced by DSA goons except my alderman (Reboyras). All of the aldermen in Pilsen are also DSA goons until you get to exactly where my investments are.
But as a person who actually feels for those who are on the short end of the stick here and who are going to face even more preassure as a result of these stupid restrictive policies, I'm aghast. I just don't understand what kind of reasonable human being thinks this is working or going to work. I don't understand how it is so difficult for people to realize that demand is demand, if you try to restrict itself from manifesting in one place, it will just show up elsewhere.
What exactly does the DSA set think is going to result from their "victory"? Do they think that people are going to be like "well gosh, the new alderman is DSA, I guess I'll stop investing here" or do they think the average yuppies going to be like "uh, I guess I won't go to that bar anymore since the alderman says gentrification is bad"? I'm just having the hardest time understanding exactly what people like Rosa think they've done to slow down the development. I mean he's allowed like one 4 flat and one 6 flat to be built in his ward since he was elected delivering a grand total of 2 ARO units. Where is the affordable housing he is promising? Where is this grand deal making ability to force developers to build more affordable units? Even his Emmitt Street proposal is starting to look like it might get bogged down in city council as other aldermen realize that he's giving away the house to his political supporters.