The infomercial last night lasted entirely too long. 2 hours to be exact. Here are a few quotes from some of those 80 or so residents in attendance.
Dave Starr said, "Currently you {Marty Cerny} have garbage, lot's and lot's of garbage..., rodents, your building has rodents, you don't take care of the property, now, how can we trust you in the future?"
Michael Harrington said, "No one {the presenters} is taking notes!"
As one neighbor said, "This is a nightmare for the neighbors, rethink this Joe. I'm dead set against this".
Another neighbor said, "I'm all for affordable housing, this isn't affordable housing."
Another neighbor said, " With what we've heard, I'm stunned you {Marty Cerny} come here asking for favors."
And another neighbor, "Basement units flood easy, why would you want to put handicapped persons in a possible dangerous situation?"
One last quote from a neighbor, "Parking. Where's the parking? This neighborhood needs more parking!"
Get the picture? The neighbors thought this plan wasn't good enough for approval. Minus the 15 or so who were brought in to stack the deck. It didn't work. This plan wasn't worth bringing to the publics attention.
One last quote from the presenter.
Quote from Marty Cerny. " We will rent to section 8 tenants. We will take referrals from Sarah Jane Knoy at O.N.E."
Blognotes:
By Jim McKee
I attended this meeting and I'll summarize the comments I made there.
I'm inclined to favor an idea to add housing that is accessible and affordable, but I have a lot of questions and concerns about this plan.
No. 1, what about the precedent that is established? Do we really want allow the basements of rental buildings all over Rogers Park to be converted to accessible units, above what current zoning allows?
It would seem that if this plan is approved, fairness would require others to be allowed to do the same.
And without parking? I think we have real issues with density and lack of parking here, and adding more units without parking couldn't possibly help. Especially with all the single family homes that have been torn down and replaced with condos by developers such as this Marty guy.
I hope the zoning committee and Joe go back to the drawing board and negotiate a better deal for the community. The one I suggested (off the top of my head) would be that perhaps in return for getting the right to add accessible units in his basement, he could renovate some of the existing non-accessible units to accessible. Like by adding an elevator and widening doorways.
Thinking about this more, I just think this zoning change is too much of a give away. As I understand it, nothing prevents condo converting these buildings after the units are added, although for 10 years they must be priced affordably.
Despite all of Marty's talk about what a swell idea this is, these are (mostly) small 1 bedroom basement apartments. And he came up with this idea to make a buck, not to provide charity. Not that there is anything wrong with that -- just as there is nothing wrong with getting him to offer up some more, instead of settling for his plan.
Also, I'm thinking, don't all those 4+1's on Sheridan have elevators and aren't they affordable? Do handicapped people really have to be relegated to live in the converted laundry and storage locker rooms of these old courtyard buildings?
3 comments:
Did Moore do his usual wrap-up,
"The community seems to be about equally divided..."
> Why on Earth are we trying to make it easy to bring cars into this neighborhood?
> No development within 8 blocks of a rail line should have to provide parking.
Unfortunately there is no empirical evidence that making driving less convenient reduces automobile use. In contrast making public transportation MORE convenient does.
> Motor transportation is responsible for 75% of energy consumption in the United States.
When people can't find parking they drive around and around the block and burn more fuel and cause more pollution and congestion.
> This neighborhood needs slightly more density to support retail
"If you want retail, add people" is the mantra of our developers. Moore's shill from the Metropolitan Planning Council advocated this chestnut at each stop in Moore's Fall Zoning Tour 2005.
But the Broadway Zoning & Marketing Study does not support this simplistic view. The consultants resisted the temptation to fall into easy pro-developer rhetoric. The study did not identify a lack of people in Edgewater as stifling retail. The report cited two issues: leakage and faciltiies. It’s not that we don't have enough people, we have plenty of people, we are just all going elsewhere to shop.
An excerpt:
"Retail Demand
Leakage - Within the three community areas surrounding the Study Area, 57% of the potential retail spending by the residents is spent outside the communities. If the Study Area could capture 10 - 30% of this leakage, it would support approximately 494,000 - 1.5 million square feet of retail. ...
The lack of supply of modern retail space within the Study Area results in the following outcomes:
* Shoppers leave the area to shop, including shopping trips to the Loop, Near North Side, Evanston, Lincolnwood and Skokie/Old Orchard.
* People reduce their consumption and do not purchase items that they otherwise would purchase of more retail space was available."
Post a Comment