Little boxes.
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Does this mean Sally is waiting to see how many calls she gets from anti-growth people before she decides whether she will support this or whether she will propose law changes to prevent it in the future?
Maybe all of us who support it should be calling and e-mailing Sally and the rest of the Seattle City Council land use committee, PLUNC, showing our support for this creative way to bring much needed affordable housing to Seattle. That way she will have the political cover to get behind this.
Ummmmm, where have you been seeing these "luxury" town houses Dom? The ones I see in SE Seattle are anything but. Built on the cheap, town houses instead of condos so there's no condo association to assure upkeep, with rooms about the size of Mr. Mulhair's projects.
Opposition to all density increases is mindless nimbyism, but automatically embracing every dense project, no matter what the details -- well, that's an "ism" too, and just as knee-jerk.
If we're going to make density work in this city, we have to do it well, and unfortunately the nimbys have plenty of bad examples to point to.
Let's not give them any more ammunition, OK?
This is not about altruism. Mr. Mulhair and Calhoun Property Managment makes a lot of money every month off of their $550/month per 7x10 foot apartments. There are 48 units in the development that is the subject of this article. He has build at least one other similar development. Do the math.
Mr. Mulhair himself is not a practitioner of densification. He actually lives in the sprawling suburbs in his own house on a rather large lot.
Finally, in regard to the middle class, upstanding people who will embrace these 7x10 foot units...7x10, prefurnished single-bed units with no room for personal furnishings other than what has been provided. Really? I don't know any middle-class working person (or student) who aspires to that quality of living. Most students I know move out of that type of living at the first possible opportunity.
I don't really feel sorry for anyone who complains about low-rent neighbors bringing their property values down, because that's the ultimate in classism (I only want to live around people as rich as me!).
To the affordable suburbs.
I do not begrudge Mr. Mulhair's right to make a profit. I am not calling for an end to this type of construction. I am calling for full transparency in the process of zoning, planning and constructing facilities like this. These facilities do have economic and environmental impact. They create demands on an old and dated city infrastructure. All members of the community should have a right to hear about, and to have a say on this type of high-impact construction. They also should have a right to know about plans ahead of time so that they can make decisions about how to handle their own property. This is about transparency and honesty.
The facility in question not proposed, planned, or constructed honestly. Every neighbor surrounding this property believed that six town-homes were being built, even as the facility was framed in. Nobody knew anything different until Calhoun properties put up a sign and fliers announcing the true purpose and architectural design.
I have, and you have, a right to know the truth about things that happen in your neighborhood, especially if they potential to impact the quality and value of your life.
When I moved into my neighborhood 12 years ago, there were 11 households on my block. By mid-summer, there will be 34, with at least 15 or more additional households likely within the next few years. This represents a current densification of more than 300%! I knew this was a likely outcome, yet I bought my home because I valued living in this Capitol Hill neighborhood and, as part of that, I supported the goal of densification.
As neighbors of this development, our primary concern is this. That a wealthy and powerful developer has managed through clever scheming and manipulation of the zoning and building permit process to construct a massive development that is wildly out of scale for the neighborhood in which it is being placed. Further, that this development, once populated, will create substantial negative impacts for the neighborhood in terms of resources, open space, parking and security. Finally, that all of this has been done utilizing a clever technical “trick” to circumvent legitimate neighbor input.
Although space prevents me from going into greater detail about all the concerns the neighbors of this project have, I would like to add that the effort by Dominic Holden to frame this issue in terms of “Class-ist” elitism and as an example of “NIMBY-ism” is both unfair and incorrect. Throughout the article, he improperly attributes statements to me that I did not make. At the same time, he both ignores significant points that I stressed multiple times during our interview or distorted other comments. In the unlikely event that this slanting of the interview was accidental, it would seemingly speak to his journalistic inexperience. If it were intentional, it would speak to his journalistic integrity and that of the editorial board of The Stranger. Either way, the readers of The Stranger should be careful to take the statements and perspectives presented in this article with a very big grain of salt!
Alan Gossett
Alan G - I actually feel for you...my guess is that this reporter twisted the statements from both sides to tell the story he wanted to tell. Transparency is indeed an important principle to uphold. To be fair though, it looks to me as if the developer complied with existing laws - it's probably no more fair to accuse them of scheming and manipulation than it is to accuse you of classism.
As another resident of the block in question, my concern is entirely related to transparency of process and manipulation of the zoning laws.
I moved into the city because I wanted density which I believe creates rich and vibrant neighborhoods. That said, there is planned reasoned density on the one hand and the exploitation of loop-holes to create developer profit on the other - this is clearly the latter.
I recall seeing the city doing the sewer hook-up on this project. Maybe a few weeks after I was told by the builder that they were building six townhomes. I just love the leap from six townhomes - to six townhomes each with eight "units" each.
So now the sewer infrastructure will be supporting an additional 42 units? Can't wait for that back-up.
I wish this gentleman well but it does look like an opportunity to exploit a loophole in zoning.
To all concerned about parking, you should consider the possibility that a fair amount of these people might not own cars. That's one of the plusses of urban living, it can be car optional, which is a very good thing if you earn so little that this is an option for you.
If you want a green infrastructure, you have to put places like this near jobs, schools, and public transit lines.
This is better for the environment and better for people of less means. If you have a problem with the potential of undesirables, move to Bellevue. Otherwise, deal with it and accept that everything in life has both advantages and disadvantages and we all just have to figure out how to deal with it.
Despite Mr. Mulhair's statement that "All I'm trying to do is provide housing that is affordable to people who need it," it's obvious that what he's really trying to do is capitalize on a slick way to bilk a lot of desperate, low-income people out of a lot of rent for very little living space in return.
With just a little quick math it's easy to see that this guy has figured out how to crank his so-called "affordable" housing into a money mill! Just the two complexes that he has coming online this Summer alone at $500 per room translates into nearly $40,000 in rent per month!!! Add his other complexes to the mix, and he is likely raking in $60,000-70,000 or more per month! Hmmmm, I wonder how much of that he's contributing back to area charities to help address homelessness issues???
Also, although I discussed the parking issues at great length with Mr. Holden during our interview, he declined to mention in his article that because Mr. Mulhair has technically only built 6 "townhouses", he is only required to provide 6-7 parking spaces for his 46-unit Boarding House! To top it off, his management company's policy is that these limited number of spaces will only be available on a monthly rental basis for $80 per month! So much for affordable alternatives!!! Of course, why would any tenant pay $80 per month for parking when they can simply pull around the block and park for free on the street? This will make parking virtually impossible to find for those of us who depend upon it for our own homes...
Finally, a note to Rainiersooner... Thanks for your empathy, I really do appreciate it! But I'd like to point out the accusations are NOT equally fair. According to the established permitting process; Boarding House developments of 9 rooms or greater provide, as a standard part of the process, the opportunity for neighbor input. Mr. Mulhair cleverly circumvented this requirement by dividing his 46-room project into six neat little projects of 8 room or less. All under the same roof! Although technically legal, he has exploited an unintended loophole to circumvent the legitimate process. This is pretty much the definition of scheming and manipulative... On the other hand, the comments I made to Mr. Holden in our interview, was severely adapted to shape his personal agenda, or that of the editorial board of The Stranger.
Alan Gossett
If the intent of this legislation is to ensure that whenever a multi-apartment house is built, the neighbors get to have a say, then why not set the legislation at 2? Or 3?
If the construction company worked hard to hide their deeds, then that's a little messed up, but all in all, it seems like a win for poor people who want to live in the city. Especially considering they get their Internet and everything else included.
Also, we need to walk in others shoes before critizing those who can ill afford expensive housing. But for the Grace of God you might be in similar circumstances.
As to parking, if you can barely afford low rents there is little chance that you can afford a car and all its attendent expenses.
Give Mr Mulhair kudos for providing a much needed solution to a vexing problem. Would you prefer a tent city?
Agreed, but for the Grace of God go I. I don't think anyone opposed to this is criticizing those who can ill afford "expensive" housing.
What people are concerned with is transparency in permitting and development that affects them and their investments and their life. Representations were made that six townhomes would be built that is what should happen, if it was represented that 48 studio apartments would be built fine, then folks would be able to respond and plan and make their own decisions accordingly with equal access to all relevant information.
"let your yes mean yes and your no mean no" Matthew 5:37.
It's funny that some people seem offended by the idea of housing that small. I wouldn't live there either, but might have when I was 20. It might be preferable to the roommate thing. As for the price, it's not cheap to build stuff.
As for the people calling for parking, I'd leave that up to the developer to guess how much demand there will be. Most residents probably won't have cars. With structured parking you're talking about 350 square feet per space including circulation...with apartments that small the parking would double the price of each unit.
We should be addressing affordability through lots of "little" ways like this. Mother-in-laws, cottages, townhouses, garage houses, and yes, tiny apartments for those who want them. That said, we should also keep our subsidy...levy coming up.
Well, FU and move down the Rainier Valley.
I think it comes down to this. You're right in feeling that neighborhood input is unfairly being sidestepped through technicality. The quality of neighborhood in this city is one of the best things going for it, and that quality should be preserved by any new development.
But, if Holden properly quoted you as saying, 'Anyone who can scrape up enough money for month-to-month rent can live there' and that it would be a 'magnet for sketchy people', then from me (a non-sketchy month-to-month grad student living on the hill) to you: boo-fucking-hoo. I feel for the 48 people who'll get to live next to your cranky, nimby-ass.
And not to belabor the point, but is it really the best idea to complain that a developer is trying to make some money off of a development (the horror!), while at the same time you're trying to unload your place for $875k?
I think it comes down to this. You're right in feeling that neighborhood input is unfairly being sidestepped through technicality. The quality of neighborhood in this city is one of the best things going for it, and that quality should be preserved by any new development.
But, if Holden properly quoted you as saying, 'Anyone who can scrape up enough money for month-to-month rent can live there' and that it would be a 'magnet for sketchy people', then from me (a non-sketchy month-to-month grad student living on the hill) to you: boo-fucking-hoo. I feel for the 48 people who'll get to live next to your cranky, nimby-ass.
And not to belabor the point, but is it really the best idea to complain that a developer is trying to make some money off of a development (the horror!), while at the same time you're trying to unload your place for $875k?
And, Duh-(as others have already mentioned)People who can only afford $500 a month CAN'T AFFORD CARS!
I am the boss and I paid for college by working and loans. So p*ss off down the Rainier Valley, it sounds like you'll fit right in.
"People who can only afford $500 a month CAN'T AFFORD CARS!"
Then how come they all have $2000 rims on their wheels?
Finally, cheap housing for my household staff. I was so tired of having to summon them from Federal Way to empty the chamber pot.
Although such a perspective certainly fires up the base of the Stranger readership, as I've previously stated, it simply isn't true! By far the largest concern of those living near this development has been the lack of forthrightness and transparency in this process.
Fair is fair, and how Mr. Mulhair obtained the required permits is fundamentally unfair, and it is this unfairness that we have issue with. If it is true that the ends do not justify the means, then the relative worthiness of this project is irrelevant. Our concern with this development is not about the worthiness of affordable housing. In fact, one of the false comments attributed to me by Mr. Holden is that I oppose all Boarding House development in Seattle. This is not true! I think that Boarding Houses can serve as an important component in generating affordable housing, but I feel strongly that their development must be in an honest and forthright manner that follows the spirit of the agreed upon process!
For those who are unclear about my position, and that of the majority of my neighbors, and wish to more clearly understand it, please refer to my earlier posting, (#15). For those who, incorrectly, insist on reading into that clear statement, criticism of those with less means, then feel free to self-righteously pontificate your little hearts out.
I'm disappointed that the Stranger has chosen to minimize and misrepresent the legitimate concerns of myself and my neighbors in this matter. In any case, I feel that, for those with open minds, I have stated my true position as clearly as possible given the limits of these postings. For the rest, no further amount of banter is going to serve any useful purpose. For myself, I'm going to close this browser window after posting this message and trust that the majority of readers of this blog will hear the plea for transparency and basic fairness in my statements...
Best wishes to all who work for justice...
Alan Gossett
Stupid White Man, this sort of housing is almost ideal for students working their way to where you are now.
You're spot on.
I suspect if this matter were litigated Mulhair would lose.
Not my fault you CHOSE to be poor. What did you study at Evergreen anyway, sociologism?
What Mr Mulhair is doing is providing something the freakin City Leaders havent been able to get off their collective asses and structure themselves, get to work you blowhards! A percentage of units in a $100M + building isnt solving the problem here, thats a developer reach around for high end projects.
Speaking of the carbon footprint as it applies to this situation, are there covered bike storage areas in these properties? There should be. Mayby that's what the city council should be working on with properties like this.
Whether you support or oppose this project, it's fair to question whether doing an end-run around zoning laws and building overly-dense transient housing units in a single family neighborhood is going to help the larger cause.
Let me ask this: you readers who are so quick to brand as NIMBYs those who question or disagree with this project: would you support siting a McDonald's in the middle of Fremont? Would you support a prison-release transitional housing next to an elementary school? There are very good reasons for zoning. It's completely appropriate for people to work toward preserving the character of their neighborhoods, whether it's Broadway or Broadmoor. And that means imposing limits and boundaries and controls.
Let's work toward a more economically diverse neighborhoods, but let's do it in a thoughtful, balanced way. Let's not rush to embrace anything dressed up as "affordable housing." Perhaps this developer has a great solution that will help create more diverse communities. Perhaps he's just another slum-lord looking to get rich and leaving the neighbors to pick up the costs: overcrowding, crime, drugs, litter, vandalism. But this project clearly merits very close scrutiny. And let's put in place some protections so that if the worst does happen, the neighborhood can do something about it.
Yes, the project could be better, but it is within the laws as they are. But this could be a good thing. 1 resident of a similar development from the same people is happy with how it is run. I doubt that person is the lowlife everyone is fearful of. These units will likely be rented by students, service industry workers (who are often students, remember this the next time you order your $4 latte) and people starting over for one reason or another. These people need to live near their jobs, their schools, and likely near public transit. Give them a break for fucks sake.
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.
But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Everybody's got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don't matter that you got not alot
So what,
They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine....
Because it takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
550$ for a shoe box? That is a gouge beyond reasonable profit even for a Craftsman built house. Maybe you should also include meals for that @ 8 dollars a square foot. LOL I can rent a used trailer for half that. When are people going to stop breeding and over consuming.
Places like these are a good place for a-lot of people to start.
He’s charging $550 per mo in rent. Typically, people shouldn’t pay more than 30% of their gross monthly income on housing (rent/mortgage, utilities, taxes, etc). If they do, they start falling quickly behind. If rent is $550, utilities are probably $80-100 putting total at $650 per mo in housing. $650 is the equivalent of $900 in gross, pretax income. If it’s 30%, that equates to $3,000 per month in gross, pretax salary, or $36,000 per year. Ya aint sketchy if you’re making $35-40k per year salary. “Sketchy” people sell drugs, steal and get by at the expense of others while contributing nothing to society. His tenants are the working poor… too busy and contributing too much to society to be sketchy.
This type of analysis should be presented to City Council and the Planning Dept. Perhaps by a nonprofit or an advocacy group in Seattle. This type of housing is called workforce housing. It’s commonly built by for-profit and nonprofit developers to provide quality, affordable housing to waitresses, clerks, janitors, etc that make more than poverty-level wages yet work their asses off to serve the snobby rich. It allows them to live close enough to work so they can rely on city services and not pay an arm and a leg (in time and money) for transportation to and from their low paying jobs.
The City fathers should have done their homework to realize this developer was building housing for 4 times the number of residents they approved. A few simple questions would have revealed the number of tenants in the project. Shame on Seattle's local government and shame on the snobs that frown on such projects.
hey braniac, in case you forgot to actually read what this article was about (affordable housing being created in seattle without the use of government subsidies or tax breaks), the whole idea of this is that none of your tax dollars would be going directly to pay for any of this. instead of making contrived stereotypical comments that a rich white man would make (does anyone really believe you are actually successful?), you might actually think before you comment. can't wait to see what you grab out of the inflammatory grab bag next. at least get a little more creative next time will ya? i'm not really getting that much out of this relationship anymore. it's not me, it's you.
To all you folk who are looking for affordable housing. You know the best way? Make more money. It's not our fault you sat in class day dreaming about fingering the girl next to you and where to score a fat one. Now, you're out you realize you should have studied a little harder so you want me to pay your rent.
Well, FU and move down the Rainier Valley.
Stupid White Man
Both of these viewpoints are just plain ignorant. I AM working, but due to layoffs in my fields (biotech and civil service) I am only working part-time and can't even afford $550 a month for rent. I spend at least 3 hours a day looking for work (yes, I talk to people in person, not just sit on the computer all day). I am not an undesirable itinerant, and I don't want to live out in the boonies where I can't get to work easily. I'd rather take the bus than drive my car and wear it out before I get back on my feet and can afford to replace it. And it doesn't have fancy rims.
FYI-Mr. Gossett, did you know that you have been living three doors down from exactly what you fear? A subsidized housing project! Bet you didn't. Have you had a problem with those tenants? I suppose the crack distribution house two doors down was a nice selling point to your house, too? Development is a good thing.
Also, check your math when you make a point...Mr. G-"With just a little quick math it's easy to see that this guy has figured out how to crank his so-called "affordable" housing into a money mill! Just the two complexes that he has coming online this Summer alone at $500 per room translates into nearly $40,000 in rent per month!!! -46 total rooms at $500/month = $23,000 and is a far cry from $40K. BTW- did you know this is in direct relation to apartment revenues?
Your points are valid but maybe, Mr. Gossett, you should call Mr. Mulhair directly as I did. He might turn you into a believer. He did me and I too, am your neighbor next door.
It's a fine line... how low is too low and what's "affordable"?
I think a 10x10 room including bath is a perfect size. I would have to admit though, after having lived in Central Africa for 4 years that it is a bit small, even by African standards, but maybe the computer access will make up for that.
It seems to me that if you can't find a job that pays enough to support you where you would like to live than you should move to where you can find a job that will pay you enough to live, even if you don't want to live there. But that would require common sense and that has been in short supply in Seattle for the last 40 years.
Remember, If we had a city where only the people who could afford to live here lived here, we'd have nothing but a bunch of neurotic baby boomers whining about how you can't get good help anymore.
Spelled out: the developer is charging twice the prevailing rate/sq.ft. for Cap Hill rentals generally. If he was primarily motivated to provide affordable housing at current market space/rates, rather than using zoning loopholes to enable him to simply double his rental income, the rental on these "hostel rooms" would be closer to 275/mo, not 550.
I see this is just another example of pure out & out developer exploitation marketed with a "friends of the poor" PR push. An irony is that if he DID rent these units for a much lower & fair price, the locals would likely be throwing *twice* the hissy fit they already are now. Basically, NPoorIMBY does sum it up. No matter how much the locals sugar coat their objections through parking issues, etc., it really all boils down to a class-based objection.
Get a clue Fin, or are you to sheltered by your wealth to see what the state of the world is?
@55, you might have said one of the best things in this thread:Remember, If we had a city where only the people who could afford to live here lived here, we'd have nothing but a bunch of neurotic baby boomers whining about how you can't get good help anymore.
@56, his rents do seem inflated, but the last time I looked for rooms for rent (essentially what this is) this is about going rate. The poor do tend to buy less yet pay more per unit than others higher on the food chain. In the rents we have to factor in stuff like the inclusion of utilities (tenants keep paying the same, while the landlord pays for the tennants electricity, water, sewer, garbage, no matter what they use).
Good management will be key in this.
So STFU NIMBY idiots, it's really not that bad.
No point in using your name since you think we should all be stacked into little cages, like chickens or rabbits. Assigning numbers just makes it easier to keep track of everyone. Perhaps a tattoo? Isn't this the same kind of affordable housing the Nazis encouraged in Warsaw? One person per room, then two people per room, then three, then......
Anyway, I'm glad you think that we should all be able to live where ever we want and not where ever we can afford.
Interestingly enough, I saw a Papa Murphy's Pizza Shop the other day that accepted Food Stamps. Never mind making sure that people on government assistance are at least eating healthy foods, let's make sure they continue to eat what the want to so we have more obese children and more health problems for the Government to pay for. Maybe McDonald's will accept them also.
Hey y'all, Welcome to Uncle Barrack's Plantation.
Underemployed:
BRAVO AND KUDOS TO YOU!!!!! Spot on!!
@40:
Stupid White Boy: shut the fuckinghell UP, already!
FYI: As for your slur on Evergreen State College, my brother earned a bachelor degree in animation there and I'll bet he makes a shitload more in L.A. than you do!
Good luck in Rainier Valley.
Here is the dirty little secret. If it had been an apartment building, the allowed lot coverage would have been smaller, and therefore the impact more rational.
The code incentivizes townhouses (not necessarily a good thing in an area where one wants apartment buildings) with more lot coverage allowed with the expectation of fewer households.
Expectation and meaning are different than what is in the law. I think the guy should build an apartment building with the proper lot coverage, or else not get an occupancy permit for the townhouses...
500 DOLLARS RENT IS NOT CHEAP WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT SEATTLE'S COST OF LIVING. THEY WILL STILL BE UPSTANDING PEOPLE AND MOST LIKELY LIVEN UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THOSE OF US THAT MISS WHEN THE COMMUNITY FEELING EXISTED RATHER THAN THOSE BUILDING FENCES TO UP THE VALUE OF THEIR HOMES.
"This is not about altruism. Mr. Mulhair and Calhoun Property Managment makes a lot of money every month off of their $550/month per 7x10 foot apartments. There are 48 units in the development that is the subject of this article. He has build at least one other similar development. Do the math."
yeah, DO THE MATH. 7 x 10 = 70. There's some math for you. Dude is building dorm-style apartments (just like the nice, legal hostels we see in cities every-freaking-where) of 110 to 160 sq. ft. That's (roughly) 14' x 8' to 20' by 8', not 7 x 10. Jesus. (Is multiplying by ten higher math now?)
I also love it when upper-crust NIMBYs get their shorts is a wad over the povs. But only when they get closer! "No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o! The po' folk are supposed to stay in the ghetto!" Fer fuck's sake. You know something? Living in a small space doesn't automatically make you (a) poor or (b) fearsome. In fact, paying less for rent is very likely to improve a person's overall financial picture. I can see why the corporatists wouldn't like that, since being forced into the job market (for sometimes second and third jobs) makes them a nice profit while keeping people down, but not everyone worships at the altar of corporatism.
If your own miserable corporate job that pays for your three-quarters-of-a-million-plus spread is so awful that just the IDEA of living next to people who make less money than you? makes you so *intensely* unhappy, maybe the problem is internal. Plumb that line of thought for a while before you take your case to the federal courts.
This housing saves tons of materials and uses much less energy.
There's nothing legally in the codes that forbids it.
We aren't still living in grass huts or adobe villages, and likewise today's cities are truly obsolete -- (Dirk's projects will fit in, i believe) ---far less space and far less materials will be used to create dwellings --- energy will be conserved --- food will be grown -- your home will sell energy to a smart grid ---
there will be hydroponic high-rise FARMS yes, food farmed right in the city, saving transport --and homes will be energy productive via solar -- and materials will be very different --- you won't recognize the city of the future --- but it's coming
Urban farming----interesting concept, b.farms. I'd be all for it.
This doesn't really have too much to do with the article and for that I am sorry. Can anyone help us?
Moving from my current apartment (over $1,100 per month if you include utilities) to one of these tiny places ($625 per month) will actually increase my quality of life. I'll be able to afford to travel, to donate to charity, to buy art and Mariners tickets. I'll be able to spend my money at the neighborhood pub or coffee shop or bookstore. As a result, I'll be a true part of the neighborhood and its economy -- not just the economy of my current landlord.
What has the true impact been... not the paniced neighbor reaction... but those who actually believe a neighborhood is a diverse community.
From: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Well that explains a lot about that particular NIMBY, doesn't it...
and i built these units --- at 4036 8th NE Seattle --- and another one was designed for 7th NE but i couldn't get financing....
just for the record
pam baugher
Then there's those of you who think they are helping the poor by making them live in a room which is about the size of a jail cell. The City seems to think that is better to do to these poor people than subsidize their rent in a livable place.
And tell me how many people aspire to live in these tiny places. I doubt many of the residents are feeling like they've finally arrived when they move into them. They want to live somewhere better and are only there because they are a tough spot at the moment. Everyone lining in these places would rather live in a better place and if they have any hope at all are trying to figure how they can do that.
These are about the developer getting 2 or 3 times the going per square foot rent. And the city avoiding to have to support people who need low income housing. And it's all wrapped up and packaged... Some of you seem to taking up their banner for them... And not even realizing it!!!
And all you poor folks denigrating those with more money than you... well better hope you don't make a lot of money... You might change your views.
Might be better to think about some of these thing before you jump to conclusions...
I'm a pre-k teacher. I take care of your kids and you have the audacity to balk at my need for affordable housing? I make VERY little- even with a degree. You should put your money where your mouth is and choke on it. :)