Moadib, you forgot to mention your advocacy for ousting the current tenants from the Marine Drive Apartments, many of whom are elderly and on fixed income and have lived there for decades, so that the property can then be sold to developers to create "high end, luxury housing". Give 'em vouchers and send them packing ....Originally posted by moadib
For the record, I do not favor developers over people...look at my Convention Center posts
I have repeatedly stated that the alternative sites for the Convention center on Mohawk were wrong because there is absolutely no reason to force existing businesses and existing residences for a new convention center when there is a waterfront location bounded by scott, perry & mississippi (which is presently a parking lot adjacent to HSBC Arena) and doesnt require any demolition or forced relocation.
I have repeatedly supported the redevelopment of AM&As, Richardson, Central Terminal, the old Trico Buildings, Benlin, etc.
I have consistently supported development instead of demolition.
But what exactly are we preserving at Cedar Grove, the right for citizens to deny a small redevelopment that would provide a long term anchor for the surrounding neighborhoods.
Again, in a city with a declining population and a surplus of affordable livable neighborhoods....that are at risk of depreciation, decay, and demolition.
I SUPPORT HISTORICAL BUILDINGS AND I SUPPORT PROPERTY RIGHTS OF BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS BUT FROM MY POINT OF YOU THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF ALTERNATIVES PLUS RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, THERE ARE DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR THEM TO STAY AND THE END RESULT IS TWO FOLD:
1) IT PROVIDES A LONG TERM ANCHOR FOR THE SURVIVABILITY AND APPRECIATION OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, INCLUDING INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON ANY EMPTY LOTS.
2) IT PROVIDES JUSTIFICATION TO DEVELOPERS INTERESTED IN BUFFALO AND THE FIRST RING SUBURBS THAT ITS A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE OF ALL INCOMES WANT TO LIVE AND THEY ARE WELCOME TO DEVELOP FOR INCOME DIVERSITY.
LOOK AT DOWNTOWN BUFFALO AS AN EXAMPLE. YES, THERE ARE UPSCALE HOUSING PROJECTS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE ALSO NUMEROUS LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME PROJECTS THAT ARE IN DEVELOPMENT TOO.
ITS BLATANTLY UNFAIR TO ASSUME THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT IS SPECIFICALLY SKEWED TO A SINGLE INCOME GROUP.
You also advocate getting rid of all public housing projects because you blame the public housing projects for making slumlords slumlords. ROFLMAO. Ever hear of Scott Wizig? Frank Parlato? You persist in claiming that landlords will welcome welfare recipients and families with seven kids ... when evidence from not only Buffalo but other cities proves quite the opposite ... Give 'em vouchers and send them packing ....
BTW, name one low-income development planned for downtown ...