Shaun, anyone looking around the city these days has to be at least a little nervous about what a developer might decide to "stick," and where. As a North Stafford resident, I don't too often have reason to travel out Lafayette Blvd from downtown. However, I have to say, that "development" (if that's what somebody wants to call it) of boxes in shades of gray...er, townhouses...is just about as stuck-looking as anything I've seen of late. Good grief. Were they going for industrial ugly as the theme of choice?
Increasing density without mitigating the financial impacts is a big mistake. School seats are estimated to cost over $60,000 per seat. That's a lot of debt put on the taxpayers in order to Maximize Developer Profit.
The market determines the price of housing and rent prices nothing else. A house with a $40,000 proffer sells for the same as a house with zero proffers. The only difference is the developer that pays zero proffers makes $40,000 more profit per house, while the taxpayers are stuck with the bill. It's not fair to the legitimate developers and not fair to the taxpayers.
And let's not leave Spotsylvania out of the "development ugly" - McMansions and townhouses thicker than weeds!! Where are the proffers in our area to build the schools, fire stations, playgrounds, . . . ???
Thank you so much for a fabulous overview of what is happening with Mary's Landing. I am a trained leader with Al Gore's Climate Reality Project and heat zones, like the huge ones in the area targeted for this project, are a huge concern in regards to climate change. I love the idea of various types of housing and the green spaces mentioned. It will be interesting to see how this develops. I do hope that at least 20% of the housing is set aside for lower income families.
Well, that certainly isn't affordable housing and wasn't included in that report. That area would be perfect for mixed housing options. Any ideas on how to address this issue that I could help out with, Matt?
Shaun, anyone looking around the city these days has to be at least a little nervous about what a developer might decide to "stick," and where. As a North Stafford resident, I don't too often have reason to travel out Lafayette Blvd from downtown. However, I have to say, that "development" (if that's what somebody wants to call it) of boxes in shades of gray...er, townhouses...is just about as stuck-looking as anything I've seen of late. Good grief. Were they going for industrial ugly as the theme of choice?
Increasing density without mitigating the financial impacts is a big mistake. School seats are estimated to cost over $60,000 per seat. That's a lot of debt put on the taxpayers in order to Maximize Developer Profit.
The market determines the price of housing and rent prices nothing else. A house with a $40,000 proffer sells for the same as a house with zero proffers. The only difference is the developer that pays zero proffers makes $40,000 more profit per house, while the taxpayers are stuck with the bill. It's not fair to the legitimate developers and not fair to the taxpayers.
And let's not leave Spotsylvania out of the "development ugly" - McMansions and townhouses thicker than weeds!! Where are the proffers in our area to build the schools, fire stations, playgrounds, . . . ???
Thank you so much for a fabulous overview of what is happening with Mary's Landing. I am a trained leader with Al Gore's Climate Reality Project and heat zones, like the huge ones in the area targeted for this project, are a huge concern in regards to climate change. I love the idea of various types of housing and the green spaces mentioned. It will be interesting to see how this develops. I do hope that at least 20% of the housing is set aside for lower income families.
Well, that certainly isn't affordable housing and wasn't included in that report. That area would be perfect for mixed housing options. Any ideas on how to address this issue that I could help out with, Matt?