This makes such good sense. In my old, somewhat racially diversified neighborhood on Chicago's south side, we just lost hundreds of affordable housing units (11 buildings) to a developer from New York. No soon-to-be renovated units were set aside for affordable housing, thus displacing many long-term, limited-income renters who are now scrambling to find housing in this scarce market. The alderman did little, if anything, to maintain any affordable units or re-settle renters. More of the "haves" and " have-nots."
Preach! The state of Colorado tried to pass a sweeping land use bill (SB23-213) earlier this year, but ended up running up against opposition on both sides of the aisle. Even with significant narrowing of the applicability it still didn't pass thanks to home-rule defenders and thinly veiled NIMBYs. My hope is there is another attempt in next years legislative session and/or more municipalities take up the issue. But you know, nothing ruins historic character like a duplex or an ADU.
This makes such good sense. In my old, somewhat racially diversified neighborhood on Chicago's south side, we just lost hundreds of affordable housing units (11 buildings) to a developer from New York. No soon-to-be renovated units were set aside for affordable housing, thus displacing many long-term, limited-income renters who are now scrambling to find housing in this scarce market. The alderman did little, if anything, to maintain any affordable units or re-settle renters. More of the "haves" and " have-nots."
Preach! The state of Colorado tried to pass a sweeping land use bill (SB23-213) earlier this year, but ended up running up against opposition on both sides of the aisle. Even with significant narrowing of the applicability it still didn't pass thanks to home-rule defenders and thinly veiled NIMBYs. My hope is there is another attempt in next years legislative session and/or more municipalities take up the issue. But you know, nothing ruins historic character like a duplex or an ADU.
The tide is turning at least.