Regarding the article in the March 29 issue "More urban, less suburban," you must have been to a different city council hearing than I was at on this issue.
My recollection is that no one, other than city staff and the head of the DDA, rose in favor of this ordinance. All of those that went to the microphone, myself included, objected to its adoption. That is why we were all so surprised when the council voted, against testimony from their constituents, to approve this ordinance. It was set up in advance and the testimony had zero bearing on the outcome.
This multi-use concept has been tried other places in the city, 24 Road corridor for instance, with dismal failure. All it really did was to shut down any development. This is because a developer has a need to construct a building for their use and purposes. Why should the city force them into building something that they have no desire for or need for?
If, for instance, I want to build a building for my business, why should I have to put residential space above what I really need and can afford? This is a ridiculous notion. This will stop development in this area, not foster it. If a business has the funds for their own needs but cannot afford the second floor, they will choose to go elsewhere or not build at all. As a businessman, why should I be forced into becoming a landlord? That isn't what I do, and I do not care to get into that business. It is ridiculous.
This is thinking only inexperienced city staff could think of. They don't know or understand what the costs are and what has to happen to make a second floor, or more, economically viable. This is all a great dream of what their utopia would look like without care for the realities of life.
You have presented a very warped look at the plan. It all sounds great in concept but when you get to look at the economics of it, it all falls apart.