Some years ago I met w/ Daniel Boffo, over n’hood resistance to height/density and perception that inclusion of city land in project called to question net public benefits, notwithstanding Kettle contributions.
I suggested that the best solution might be to open the books, show people the pro formas ie. the numbers that make the project work vis a vis public land and public benefits involved.
He was incredulous (paraphrase) “Why would I let people see my profits?”
And therein lies problem.
Transparency must factor in negotiated public benefits. Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are negotiated in secret between developers and city staff (though some allege political/campaign finance influence too).
We need to reform CAC process.
Meanwhile:
Boffo/Kettle claims CAC ask is too high. City claims there’s a $12m grant on the table yet a rezoning application hasn’t even been filed. In absence of transparency one can only guess real story:
CACs? Spec-tax softened condo market? Sunk costs? Political change?
Postscript: Originally published on Twitter
On transparency and the Kettle Boffo deal.
— Pete Fry (@PtFry) June 19, 2018
Some years ago I met w/ D Boffo, over n'hood resistance to height/density and perception that inclusion of city land in project called to question net public benefits, notwithstanding Kettle contributions 1/4https://t.co/Vj1qPTs5KV