Affordable Housing and Equity

UPDATE: The developer has now removed housing from their new proposal, instead converting all zonings into commercial zonings. The justification for this change was that the expansion west provides enough housing. This page is here for archive purposes, but does not reflect the current proposed plan. 

We as a group are not opposed to Affordable housing and subsidized housing. We believe comfortable and stable housing is a human right. However, we have concerns about the developer's use of Affordable housing as a way to approve the development project through the City. When we look at the comprehensive picture, we find that the Affordable housing is completely surrounded by floodplain. We find it suspicious and unsavory that the most marginalized would be in the highest danger area-the other housing and commercial lots are out of the floodplain and will require minimal elevation. Why would we put those with the least resources in the area with the highest danger of flooding? It simply doesn't make sense, unless the developer was using Affordable housing as a gotcha to get approval by the City Commissions. When talking to the representatives of the developer of the Affordable housing, the main reason for putting the income restricted apartments in the floodplain instead of outside it was "visibility". 

When talking about the single family homes that the developer building, claims about working with Tenants to Homeowners was thrown around. While this has yet to be confirmed as true, even if it was, these houses are going to start at $300k and top out at $600k. Most average income families still cannot afford these houses, even if they are having assistance from Tenants to Homeowners.  Additionally, during conversations with Phil Struble (Land Plan Engineering) and Phil Bundy (land owner and developer), it was made very apparent that the housing was something that could be "sacrificed" as long as the Bundy secured the commercial business district. 

South Lawrence is notoriously hostile to pedestrian traffic, with crosswalks far and few. The closest "grocery store" is Walmart, a mile walk along US 59 (no sidewalks or crosswalks) and a mile utilizing the more pedestrian friendly S Michigan street. Checkers, the closest actual grocery store is over 2 miles away. This development is far away from most community resources such as healthcare (Heartland or Bert Nash), downtown, the hospital, and schools. While the developer is adding a trail system to the property, this is an inadequate move to address the systemic lack of access on the southern part of town. While school and public bus routes can be added by the City, these plans have no concrete answer and there is no time frame to develop these before the ground gets developed. To assume all low income folks have access to a personal car at all times is a grand assumption that is false. Better locations are available for subsidized housing that doesn't directly endanger our most marginalized community members to potential flood disasters and a comprehensive lack of access to the rest of the town. This is not a compassionate or equity based housing solution for our community members.