Brodart housing project on City Council’s agenda

Am I missing something here? The way it is written seems to say our state and local governments are coming up with a million dollars so a private developer can build a housing project? Does the city then own this development or does the developer? If their are toxins, why are the tax payers on the hook for remediation of the site? Are there really any toxins or is the $140,000 being used to raise the structure? I believe redevelopment money can be better used to aid the elderly and low income person replace sewer laterals, and bring housing up to codes. More affordable housing within the city is a very good thing. Reusing that property is also wise. I just can't see giving a outside company the money to do it so they can make money. If anything the $973,033 should be a low interest loan paid bad to community development for future projects. But this piece seems to be missing a great deal of information....

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

The gas impact fee got passed on the idea that the money would be used to pay for the widespread destruction of the gas industry. Why is the money being used for a broadart building that was there way before the gas drilling? Did the gas drilling cause the broadart building? Seems like there is a misallocation of funds here.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »