by Harry Powell,

It’s just another development for Pete’s sake, so nothing special or what we really need. It’s not a “good deal. ” Commissioner Romero is correct. The resolution earmarking “profits to an affordable housing trust fund” is clearly a marketing ploy to convince the voters that “this is a good deal.” Some City officials are asking us to worship this sacred cow of Peary Court “in the name of affordable housing.” It’s not what we need to buy.

There is likely going to be no profit from Peary Court, nor should there be. The idea is to keep the rents low but they are not as proposed. Or will rents charged be higher to subsidize other projects thus defeating the whole intent? It reminds me of a Ponzi scheme. They are already poised to remain close to market rate, so we simply wind up with an expensive “moderate ” class enclave – for 55 million dollars, and we don’t even control the whole property since White Street Partners will retain some unknown portion (at least until they find some other naif to foist it off on.) What effect does having their 48 units (in the middle or scattered about) have on the rest of the property if the City buys in? I see disputes, tension, and lawsuits ahead with this. It’s the poison pill that should kill this deal.

I MIGHT support buying PC, but I want it ALL, and not at that price, from these people, so that it is honestly affordable housing.

Then again, the way the commission got hornswoggled and wiggled into letting   rents go to such unacceptable levels Citywide by ordinance, and now suggesting lowering the remaining ROGO requirements for AFFORDABLE housing makes me wonder? Saving those ROGOS for the well-heeled maybe? And so now after 25 years of whining, we’re not winning anything new, just blowing 55 million on something that we don’t need (a surplus of moderate, market rate units which we have now.)

Its just another big development , it’s nothing more. And it’s already there and it IS housing – just not affordable to most Key Westers. We also probably lose a million (?) in property taxes if its developed in some other acceptable way which may never happen. The present owners are collecting rents based on a price almost half the 67 million they asked of the City. That’s a cash cow for them, Let it stay there. YOU guys OWN IT, not us, thank you very much. We can’t afford it.

Wonder what Balfour got from the sale versus the Navy’s take of the deal. The Navy should never have sold it in the first place BTW. Did the Navy get anything? The Navy could have excessed the LAND to the City or the City buying ONLY the buildings from Balfour with the Land Authority money and maybe Balfour continuing their housing lease as is until those 20 year old buildings aren’t worthwhile . They were already renting to civilians. . Easy and beneficial to all parties . But NOooo..! Easy neighborly and creative solutions could have been found, but it was all so secret, eh? Our biggest problem was ignored by the people who should have been prepared and told this was in the works for a few years, but never discussed – as most any commissioner will admit.   WTF? The City Manager was told in an” Ethics Advisory “that he could only talk about it in a “behind the scenes manner.” .What kind of ethics, transparency, is this? Serving two masters I mean. That sounds unethical to me.

How can there be any profit unless the rents are close to market rate, given that there will be a 45 million mortgage and ongoing maintenance and administrative costs on buildings that will probably not survive a 30 year mortgage?

As to maintenance and administrative costs, the ones propagandised in the City’s proposal are absurdly lower than other Housing Authority properties, so one may expect a few unpleasant surprises to eat into the purported “profit” when the City has to further tax it’s citizens. Who pays for replacing the three burned units? Other surprises?

If it’s such a good deal then why form a PAC which doesn’t really have all the information that any intelligent voter would require? And why don’t we have that info? It’s pie in the sky. Do you trust PACs? Hope not. The last one didn’t do too well with widening the channel and didn’t have the truth or facts on their side either.

Hmmm, Ask yourself, “What would Trump do”? Laugh at us I think. It’s not a “good deal.”.

Sincerely,and good luck.

Harry Powell