chaglang wrote:Gotcha. I thought it was the "Why should they get a subsidy if I didn't get one"? argument.KCtoBrooklyn wrote:I don't think this argument was to say that subsidies shouldn't exist at all. The point was that if people are willing to pay market rate for homes and the MAC apartments, then market rate should work for this development.
Does anyone know what "market rate" is for an apartment on Linwood?
Don't get caught up in the market rate argument. Market rate is what will people pay to live in a given location, a given size apartment, a given management company, a given finish of space.
MAC is commanding premium rents ($.90 per sf per month, which is premium for midtown) because of their "package", which includes depth of capital sufficient to allow them to obtain minimal return while building a market.
You can not, should not, expect that anyone else can replicate the model that MAC is following. Not unless KC Life, or DST, or Hallmark Cards decides to focus their bank accounts on growing the community.
Yes, be skeptical, but don't assume obstacle status until you know what is in fact being proposed. You don't have to be their best friend right away, but you should not assume everyone and everything to be a threat. The effort it takes to develop a property, let alone change a neighborhood is too difficult in itself.
I don't know anything specific about the "senior housing" under consideration. But, I do know enough to be skeptical that this is a bad thing for the hood. It's to the neighborhood benefit to establish a cohesive system to readily identify and embrace entities and proposals that are to be a net gain. This should be a natural outcome of the investment MAC is making in the hood. It's very unlikely that this senior housing proposal would have happened sans MAC.
Make sure the opposition arsenal is utilized for something worth opposing.