Laserfiche WebLink
Community Response to Online Survey Following 11/28/18 Meeting <br />91 <br /> <br />What Questions did this raise? <br />• How will these voting results translate into actionable items? <br />• Why raising the minimum wage is not part of the affordability discussion. Why eliminating <br />MUPTE was not discussed. Why publicly owned affordable housing was not discussed. If what <br />was discussed, what not, was determined by what the participants generated and what they <br />didn’t, seems they were of a lot a bit out of tune and that the imported info provided by the <br />economists was also lacking. It’s as if the thinking is that status quote thinking, status quo <br />models, can solve a status quo problem. Here’s this: 62% of residents in Vienna live in publicly <br />owned social housing. Not worth one bit of consideration? <br />• Curious how I can become involved in this effort: Advocate to change Oregon law to reduce <br />liability requirements for condominium projects. <br />• Many options were not sufficiently disaggregated, for example ADUs should have been voted in <br />subparts, similar to revenue sources. For example owner occupancy, and special restrictions in <br />South Univ., Amazon and Jefferson should be voided. Options were most seriously aggregated <br />in option 3A, including letting people partition our lots and HOW SMALL is small? You omitted <br />the most important questions. <br />• I remember when they were talking about a CET the builders were pretty much against it no <br />matter what--good ideas were brought up and they were asked if there were any ways they <br />could be for it if other things about it were specified: how do we get people to have more of a <br />group mentality and look out for things other than their short-term pocket book? <br />• How knowledgeable are participants on these options? <br />• How many units of housing, and what price range of housing, could be expected to result from <br />the various measures or groups of measures considered--and how quickly? Are these numbers <br />commensurate with the scale of Eugene's housing crisis? What changes have occurred in <br />Eugene that participants strongly opposed at the time, but have turned out OK? What other <br />changes have happened without residents having made a decision (either due to economic <br />factors or because we were not able to reach agreement)? Most of us would really prefer that <br />nothing change--but this is not realistic, or even desirable. <br />• Why is City Council being so unresponsive to the housing needs of younger generations, and <br />maintaining status quo NIMBY obstructionist agendas? <br />• Is City Council willing to prioritize the strategies identified, even if it offends the neighborhood <br />association boards? <br />• Why was there so much time and money spent on this group when there is so very little that <br />City Council can really make use of? It's hard to fathom how City Council can take any next steps <br />based on the report that staff will deliver and single interest groups will continue to lobby hard <br />for what they want to see happen. <br />• It’s really hard to understand this without hours or watching videos. <br />• How a group desiring to work on solutions to existing housing problems got conned and <br />manipulated by the process which went to great lengths to demonstrate how egalitarian it was, <br />without actually allowing genuine consideration of the issues to take place. <br />• Was rent control discussed? <br />December 12, 2018, Work Session - Item 2