🧵Tomorrow a new proposal for the Elm+Liberty development comes before City Council, after a 2 week hold on the vote.
It's a terrible deal for the city.
It looks the Mayor would rather enrich this developer than create community benefit.
Let's review. 👇 1/
It's a terrible deal for the city.
It looks the Mayor would rather enrich this developer than create community benefit.
Let's review. 👇 1/
Council held the vote to see if affordable housing can be part of the deal.
The new proposal has a promise of so-called affordable housing, promising to reduce 10% of the units' rent by a few dollars a month.
THIS change will not address the city's affordable housing gap. 2/
The new proposal has a promise of so-called affordable housing, promising to reduce 10% of the units' rent by a few dollars a month.
THIS change will not address the city's affordable housing gap. 2/
AND the developer proposes to subsidize it's own deal further by paying for this miniscule reduction in a few rents by 🚨🚨🚨
BREAKING THE PROMISE TO PAY INTO THE STREETCAR FUND, as all developers are asked to do. 3/
BREAKING THE PROMISE TO PAY INTO THE STREETCAR FUND, as all developers are asked to do. 3/
[Sidenote: We bet the Mayor came up with this idea to shortchange the streetcar and blame us for it.] 4/
So....the new version is a VERY bad deal that puts MORE $ in the pockets of the Developer.
And the city taxpayers have to pay MORE for the streetcar, and we don't even get affordable housing in the deal!
Net benefit to Developer $40,000
Additional loss to City $900,000
5/
And the city taxpayers have to pay MORE for the streetcar, and we don't even get affordable housing in the deal!
Net benefit to Developer $40,000
Additional loss to City $900,000
5/
We have a better idea.
The developer has enough profit in the deal to make ALL of the units affordable to people making low+middle wages. Here's how:
The Developer has assumed an interest rate of 8%. But that's just a temporary (bridge) loan. 6/
The developer has enough profit in the deal to make ALL of the units affordable to people making low+middle wages. Here's how:
The Developer has assumed an interest rate of 8%. But that's just a temporary (bridge) loan. 6/
The Developer told the City it will refinance at 2.5% interest rate for the permanent loan.
That difference in debt payments= $3⃣million per year in pure profit to the developer.
[We had to make a public records request to get this info—and waited months for a response.] 7/
That difference in debt payments= $3⃣million per year in pure profit to the developer.
[We had to make a public records request to get this info—and waited months for a response.] 7/
Let me repeat that.
The CIty knows that the developer's budget assumptions are false 🤥and that the developer has $3M in profits that CAN BE USED TO MAKE SOME OF THE HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE. 8/
The CIty knows that the developer's budget assumptions are false 🤥and that the developer has $3M in profits that CAN BE USED TO MAKE SOME OF THE HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE. 8/
We estimate that with just half of that profit, the Developer can make 30 % of the units TRULY affordable to people at low wage levels.
The new proposal is a bad deal for City taxpayers. We suggest the WIN-WIN deal for Elm + Liberty is totally doable. 9/END
The new proposal is a bad deal for City taxpayers. We suggest the WIN-WIN deal for Elm + Liberty is totally doable. 9/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
