For those that don’t have social media or want copy and paste: this is my public statement for 6/10

Burdens without benefits I've seen the updated changes on the proposal. It has some softer language, still without assurances or protections for residents that can be relied upon. The public trust has really been damaged here with procedural errors in communication and conduct. From the beginning, this neighborhood has been inequitably chosen for this industrial designation of business and employment to eventually replace homes. The Industrial land use designation has no benefits to the residents in this neighborhood. This change would still diminish home retention rights without some form of “Residential” in the name of it. Saying homes are “granted to exist in their current condition” does nothing to ensure the longevity of the families’ security going much farther forward. Lenders are still much less likely to secure a loan against a home that exists in a zone without that going forward. Which means a valuable tool to stay in one’s home will be taken away. We’d like to see: ● Anti-displacement help by way of foreclosure prevention, relocation help, housing stabilization funds, and protections for seniors and multi-generational households. ● Homeowner protections that include clear rules protecting existing homes, refinancing options, repair rights, home expansion right, ADUs, and help for home-based businesses. ● Local hiring and small business help for people that already live here. The airport expansion that has already happened to this neighborhood has been done without giving anything back to the neighborhood it most impacts. And this should not be more of the same. If public officials say this change is necessary for the city’s future, then current residents should not be left carrying all the risk and burden while others receive the long-term economic benefit. A Community Benefit Agreement would go a long way in securing that the people here keep the ability to retain their homes for their families’ future security. In writing. There should also be no added harm to the fragile & unique environmental conditions of this neighborhood. In writing. Asking for a balanced approach of any change in our neighborhood is not unreasonable. The families in this neighborhood are the ones that will be on the other end of this “move fast and break things” strategy of planning. Future changes to this neighborhood should include a benefit to the people here, and the decision makers in our city should be putting the welfare of its people first and not last, or non-existent altogether.