Encouraged public comment on ADUs, park funding, and fat heads
First, the consideration to use money from Traverse City’s Brown Bridge Trust Fund for parkland improvements drew out one reader’s list of spot-on questions:
- Where is the money from the BB Fund currently being spent?
- Since the Fund’s inception, how much money has been spent?
- Are there alternative plans for the Fund’s use?
- Where are the “greatest needs” in the City’s current budget? (Or what will people in the general public say the “greatest needs” are?)
- Does the City have a prioritized Capital Improvement Plan for its parks? (What are the costs per park or per priority to get things done that will have an impact on neighborhood?)
- How will projects be selected/investment decisions made?
If I am a voter, I am going to want to see something tangible (like a suite of projects/investments) to react to.
I’d add a couple more: How will the City measure success? What are the goals?
There is disagreement on the path forward (RE) on the City Commission, so there is a chance these questions will be answered–however slight. The next time they will discuss the issue is at the May 6 meeting.
Ayyyy! You’re right on with this Gary. We want to keep the character of Traverse City as much as we can and make it possible for young folks to stay here.
A comment from a young parent highlights their personal struggle to find affordable housing in the City and how limited options push people to auto-dependent places:
I moved to Traverse City in March. I work full-time, making $32,000 a year. For now, I am the sole income-earner for my family of four (wife, children ages 4 and 2) Because of the family size, we need a place with approximately 1,000 square feet. We have been told by a number of landlords we would not make good applicants because we have children…..Currently I am living in Williamsburg with my in-laws. The housing prices I have found in Traverse City are not conducive for young families and necessitate commuting by car. As much as you feel street design has contributed to the car-centric culture of TC, so to have the infamously high rental prices.
Rolf, who wrote a guest post recently about his struggles to build a tiny home, keyed in on a deficiency in the current ordinance that speaks to the above problem:
The proposed ordinance creates barriers to successful implementation..for example the 250 square foot per person requirement. The state of Michigan only requires 120 sf for a habitable dwelling and doesn’t set a limit on the number of people within that space. Granted this may not be practical for some or ideal for most, but why more than double the size? This forces a single person (perhaps a senior) with a 700 sf house to allocate 500 square feet of that house to accommodate a young couple to cohabitate; or a young couple with the same size house to build a 1,000 square foot addition on top of their garage to house another family with two children.
You need to get a life, get in your car and enjoy far away places too.! the only thing fat around here is your head-swell from being the self appointed anti-car czar.
Nice to hear from you too; you inspired me:
Use the comment section below or through this page to send us a message, on any subject, anytime, anyhow. Comments will be sent to author and potentially used in future posts. Please highlight whether you’d like you’re name published with your comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of writers previously published here or any of the organizations, committees, commissions or other affiliation the authors may belong to, unless so stated.