Take a look at a City of Redmond draft document “City of Redmond Community Strategic Plan 2019”.
On page 10, under 2019-2020 Actions, there is is a bullet for “explore rezones that allow increased density in return for increased affordable housing production”. Look under Objective 3, ‘Not started’ on page 10 to see the proposed rezone statement. It is mid-page.
There is no explanation of which city locations might be under scrutiny.
This is is something for the Education Hill neighborhood to be aware of, since there are sections of older homes that may be vulnerable to ‘upzoning’. (Ironically, the older homes are ‘affordable' single family housing).
-Susan Robertson, Education Hill resident
7 comments:
That kind of 'improvement' is troubling. We have many modest houses that are being 'renovated' (really, rebuilt from the ground up) and placed out of reach of most of the population. I don't know what the solution is (yet) but it is definitely causing problems for the overwhelming majority of the population.
How does one access that document to look at it?
IMHO, the city has permitted developers to put up how many apartment buildings? How many of them have affordable apartments? How many of them SHOULD have apartments that teachers, police officers, firefighters, and city workers can afford? How many can a restaurant worker, janitor, or non-tech worker can afford?
Search for "2019 City of Redmond Strategic Plan." That should get you there. If not let me know.
Building an "apodment" on the small lot the city owns at 83rd and 166th is an idea for affordability. Apodments are 150-200sf bedroom/bathroom suites with a shared kitchen and hallway. But, I'm not sure they'd provide enough income for a private investor.
Who voted for this? We need names when they are up for reelection.
Affordable housing equates to very high density; which is okay when you also spend the money to update the infrastructure to accommodate the increased population in a central area, increased traffic/vehicle trips, etc. But Redmond is not improving its infrastructure. It's careless and irresponsible urban planning.
Post a Comment