Denver DSA’s position is correct they just don’t have PR chops.
Empty promises from a private developer to provide a small percentage of affordable housing in a golf course area is all but guaranteed to mean luxury apartments get built there and the affordable housing is phased out within a couple years.
Public housing and rent control will do the actual thing desired. YIMBY talking points about simply increasing supply through development are bullshit, you need to produce enough units that actually rent at a particular rate, not leave it to real estate ghouls that will do things like create an entrance just for the poors and start “upgrading” the “affordable” units within the first year, ensuring that fewer poors can live there and that they can jack up the rent on “renovated” units.
Seems kinda complex to me, I think I’d come down on the NO position though.
It boils down to
“Should we trust a private developer to provide timely results with no guarantees/mandates by the government”
And
“How can the state take back the land and let the community decide what to do with the land without interference?”
The liberals say that DSA wants perfection and as a result, is anti housing. But the DSA just wants the government to do the same thing as the liberals, except without a developer leading the project. Someone will make millions of dollars regardless, but liberals think the DSA is deluded enough to want housing built under capitalism with 0 profit motive involved lol.
Thank you for linking, I find their statement credible and yours yimby nonsense
Gonna have to ask the question, are there not already paved and prepared places where new housing could be constructed instead of green spaces?
Like, the first thing that happens with making a subdivision is the bulldozers come in and remove the first foot or so of soil and replace it with clay and gravel to get foundation pads laid. Then there are the, probably, miles of sewer lines, gas lines, electric/communication lines that need to be dug in. Then there’s the roadways and rain drains that have to be worked into the city’s rain water diversion plans.
Proponents of the project characterize Save Open Space and the opponents as anti-housing. But many opponents of the golf course redevelopment have pointed to the industrial part of Northeast Park Hill, less than a block from the golf course, and other nearby neighborhoods along the A Line.
That part of the neighborhood includes many empty parking lots and one-story industrial buildings ripe for dense, mixed-use development. Why take over 155-acres of potential park when there is so much underused land nearby they ask?
The propaganda against these DSA libs is so strong that even the libs on this site believe in it lol.
