For this item my presentation went like this:
Good evening. I must say you are really grasping at straws for the Housing Element. I thought people invested in property to get a long term increase in value.
So I can't understand why the city feels it's entitled to profits made from that investment risk or upkeep of property. Because aren't investments supposed to equal profits, without the sticky fingers of the city? And doesn't the city have an array of taxes and fees to artificially inflate property prices already? That's probably the most outrageous in this item.
The next being that the state commit the DMV site for deed restricted affordable housing which the city is now demanding. Let's look at this action, by doing this you would basically be removing the DMV from the city. Resulting in more car trips and less ease of access for the residents.
Then by making it easier for congregations and non profits to build affordable housing on their properties. Is this only an option or is it now a demand as with the DMV site?
In ending please do remember thirteen items are discussion items to possibly be put on a future agenda. So I have to question if it was legal for you to vote and approve Lamont Ewell's hiring to find a new city manager by a thirteen item. Since it was removed from the Closed Session at the December 29, 2020, Special City Council Meeting.
It is quite extensive the lengths you will go to, to try and hide the hiring of Lamont Ewell as the person looking for the new city manager. But once again I think the way you did it was illegal. Thank you.