Just my personal opinion, but aside from them not technically revealing the conflict of interest, it seems like the filer had a personal axe to grind. I've found that city sidewalk rebuilding is one of those odd areas where this is all kinds of grey space about who pays for what dependent upon all kinds of factors. It's always kind of irked me, because I've always thought they should just clearly be a city's jurisdiction like how we do the actual streets in the right-of-way. It'd make things easier. But, that's another discussion. lol
The conflict of interest didn't stem from the sidewalk itself, but the retaining wall that the city installed which bordered the office of the city attorney.
I'm not sure if that's really relevant? If a sidewalk needs to be fixed through an area in which it goes through and elevation, then everything associated with keeping that path clear needs to be fixed. Generally, the city tries to split costs with property owners, but sometimes when the city has the money, they do the work, themselves. Not reporting the potential conflict of interest was an error, which is why they had to pay out a small settlement. But, at least for me? This is something I simply don't consider a real scandal. In any case, it appears to have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, or he'd have not settled the case.
At he next Planning Commission agenda will include rezoning of the Evergreen properties on Albert across from Valley Court Park to include it in the downtown zoning district. The city has been rezoned these properties multiple times since 2017 trying to get these lots developed as a large building and have failed.
Anyway, they want to rezone them one more time back to the downtown zoning district to be able to market it for dense development after having been under the impression that the zoning was still for the slightly less intense RM32 (City
Center Multiple-Family Residential). The Downtown Development Authority, who owns the properties, voted earlier this month unanimously for the rezoning:
Maybe this time, the city will be able to remember what the actual rezoning of the lots are. lol
Speaking of Valley Court Park, has there been any update on the triangle parcel across the street that was supposed to be affordable housing? Lansing reference I can find to it is a local new article about another company taking over the parcel.
The owners of The Student Bookstore want to build a 14 floor 325 unit apartment building on the site of their building, they're asking the city to revise it's requirement for low and lower income housing. Apparently the city is at least being mildly receptive, which is promising given the lack of new construction there despite favorable national and local trends. If they do revise their rules I'd expect a lot more happening in EL.
I'm not in favor of changing the ordinance. I do not believe that's why development of high-rises cooled down; I believe people like Ballein are using that as a scapegoat.
I guess agree to disagree. I believe the ordinance does create a not-insignificant barrier to development, look no further than the City Center/The Abbot saga where they still have not complied with the requirement, or Landmark which did market rate senior housing instead (a market with limited demand in downtown EL). You can't build $400k or $600k per unit buildings and lease them for "affordable" rates without having some very wealthy residents paying exorbitant rents to subsidize the whole scheme, not exactly something this region is overflowing in.
EL politicians and the misguided NIMBY residents that back them may ultimately be the biggest barrier to development, they nitpicked the next phases of the HUB out of existence even though it was in their designated student housing district after all, but the ordinance is not helping the city in any way. EL is hurting itself and in doing so hurting the region.
BTW, this is the same city that turned down a 100% affordable housing development to preserve a parking lot.
Just so you know the Landmark is all student housing, it is the Newman's Lofts a separate building on Albert that is senior market rate housing. I live in the Newman Lofts building and I would say it is nearly 90% leased, the rents are not really out of line with most in the area these days. We do add a little diversity to the neighborhood and year-round customers for local business. I believe that affordable senior housing would be a good thing for downtown EL, I wonder why the locals would oppose that. Albert Ave downtown is in no one's back yard.
I actually read the story. I'd be all right with what's being proposed. My intitial thought was that they wanted to scrap the affordable housing bonus, but it sounds like they want the city to implement a penalty, essentially, for bypassing it, which I don't find unreasonable.
Comments
Anyway, they want to rezone them one more time back to the downtown zoning district to be able to market it for dense development after having been under the impression that the zoning was still for the slightly less intense RM32 (City
Center Multiple-Family Residential). The Downtown Development Authority, who owns the properties, voted earlier this month unanimously for the rezoning:
Maybe this time, the city will be able to remember what the actual rezoning of the lots are. lol
Speaking of Valley Court Park, has there been any update on the triangle parcel across the street that was supposed to be affordable housing? Lansing reference I can find to it is a local new article about another company taking over the parcel.
https://eastlansinginfo.news/a-longtime-east-lansing-business-owner-wants-to-build-housing-downtown-first-the-city-will-have-to-change-its-policies/
EL politicians and the misguided NIMBY residents that back them may ultimately be the biggest barrier to development, they nitpicked the next phases of the HUB out of existence even though it was in their designated student housing district after all, but the ordinance is not helping the city in any way. EL is hurting itself and in doing so hurting the region.
BTW, this is the same city that turned down a 100% affordable housing development to preserve a parking lot.