The phrase “at no cost to the city” is a red flag.
It either means someone is lying, or that there’s some kind of “public-private partnership” which are frequently handouts to corporations or rich people.
Maybe this is the rare case when the government will properly supervise the private side, and hold them to account.
And as usual I don’t know if I should be outraged that a private company is involve that may lead to questionable practices or happy that at least they are 1000 affordable units available. Both maybe? I guess I’m cautiously optimistic.
Sounds like here it’s letting a private company spend the money to get access to 3,000 residences in exchange for 1,000 affordable ones.
The phrase “at no cost to the city” is a red flag.
It either means someone is lying, or that there’s some kind of “public-private partnership” which are frequently handouts to corporations or rich people.
Maybe this is the rare case when the government will properly supervise the private side, and hold them to account.
And as usual I don’t know if I should be outraged that a private company is involve that may lead to questionable practices or happy that at least they are 1000 affordable units available. Both maybe? I guess I’m cautiously optimistic.