By: Susan Bauer

Susan Bauer — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 21:10:20 +0000

Is it a bad thing for poor people to have access to clean, well appointed, affordable rental housing, located in a safe historic town on the Eastern Shore of Virginia?

By: Wayne Creed

Wayne Creed — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:33:53 +0000

Great reporting of the facts. The bottom line here is that the Town never could prevent it from becoming a low-income housing unit. At the rent levels ($650 per month), that is pretty much in line with most low-income prices, and given the current state of Sea Breeze, affordable housing is much needed. The only reason section 15f was ever entered in the first place was to create a false sense of “upscaleness” for the project, that would appease and please the yearn for a BMW-Mercedes aesthetic status quo. Now that the genie is out of the box, citizens need to accept the reality of what is really going to happen to that building. It also begs a bigger question: not whether the apartments should be upscale lofts or low-income housing, but whether a 90-person multi-family structure should be located in Central Park in the first place. And why should the taxpayers be on the hook over the mediocre terms of the contract — by footing the 75% reduction in hookup fees, not to mention giving public property away for a mere $10? “The first responsibility of every citizen is to question authority” — Benjamin Franklin. Our questions to the authorities that be are: why did they put discriminatory language in the contract in the first place, why did they take it out, and under whose authority was all this undertaken?

Comments on: Old School Contract Amended to Allow Low-Income Housing

By: Susan Bauer

By: Wayne Creed