ksballen (Brendon Allen)

Follow

Comment history

City commissioner raises question about how city is defining affordable housing

Actually I think you missed my point, my point was that the 840 amount quoted did not mention it included utilities which is a misrepresentation. I also stand by the fact that one rate for what fair market across a community is not representative or a good yard stick for what is affordable. If your argument is that, that specific area is not affordable at that rate then that is a fine argument to have. As the city commission readily admitted at the meeting the definition of what affordable meant was not defined before asking for those properties to be included before consideration for incentives. In the analysis one way of figuring this was chosen there of course are others. Hence chad's article. I think it is good to establish what is meant by affordable housing, does it also apply to new projects using the same rate throughout the community? should it be pro-rated on values within x blocks of an area? should there be zones where it is exempted or encouraged for redevelopment? What is the end goal family housing, single dwelling housing, etc? I don't disagree with a lot of Chad's questions but given the lack of a clearly defined dentition and answers to those questions I feel the requirement the city asked and the burden to show the value to the community (see reply above) was met and most all those in attendance were in agreement (hence the 4-1 vote).

November 4, 2016 at 8:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

City commissioner raises question about how city is defining affordable housing

Lets put the affordable designation by the side then if that is the issue and look at the NRA and IBA benefit which was your larger question. You ask how to measure the benefit to the community that was actually the whole point of the presentation before the city even voted on the issue. A 3rd party was hired (at the advice of the city), the NDC (nationally recognized) to do a "but for" analysis which is exactly what you speak of. They found a clear benefit for the community a a level much above what was finally agreed on to move the project forward. It is involved but it was posted at https://assets.lawrenceks.org/assets/.... Looking at it as a loss for the city (and other projects like this) is short sighted (hence the "but for" if it was not developed). It generates 1200 a year in taxes currently. With this plan it will always get at least and in fact more for the duration of the incentives, and much more after that duration. This is not a zero sum game the point is it is a benefit to encourage a property to be developed and also a benefit to the city, hence the analysis. I encourage you to read the report.

November 4, 2016 at 8:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

City commissioner raises question about how city is defining affordable housing

To start full disclosure (as that is important) I am involved in the project voted on but two things missing are

1. The cost included utilities which depending on your estimation could drop the rent share to 650 which is a fair different number

2. Chad hits on it but do you say what is affordable in today's area or what you envision for a redeveloped vibrant area which i believe is the goal for that area. Those are two different questions and the lazy analysis of looking at rent across the city does not seem a fair measure

All housing will vary by area and zone. Allowing reduced rental rates even in more affluent areas can still provide a level of diversity that would be beneficial to the city and can not be simply measured as a city average.

November 4, 2016 at 3:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU seeks to require holsters, other safety measures for guns on campus

My understanding is the law was changed this year to not require a permit to concealed carry and to not require a class of any kind. Did I get that wrong?

October 12, 2016 at 2:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In wake of ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide, Brownback issues executive order on 'religious freedom'

Barb Gordon got it right there is no reason for this it is already protected. Just dumb grandstanding as always. Good work Gov.

July 7, 2015 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Republicans gearing up for Obamacare fight

6-3 Roberts wasn't even the swing. When will you give up?

June 25, 2015 at 9:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas revenue projections for next year contributing to even bigger budget hole

Also Marc I am sure you know ks is a net receiver of federal aid. (They pay in less than they get). So if anything people in ny and California should be mad about supporting our welfare state.

April 21, 2015 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas proposal would allow concealed carry with no permit

Others can carry I have no issue with that but I believe the current system is working fine and not onerous I see no reason to change it.

February 13, 2015 at 12:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas proposal would allow concealed carry with no permit

If you can afford the firearm and ammo isn't the license and class cost a very small percentage of the outlay?

February 13, 2015 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous