St. An­thony needs af­ford­able hous­ing; other in­ter­ests pre­vail

Star Tribune - - EDITORIALS READERS WRITE - KATE MARTIN, St. An­thony

Thank you to the Star Tri­bune for its con­tin­ued cov­er­age of the con­se­quences of the Lowry Grove mo­bile home park clo­sure and of St. An­thony’s saga over af­ford­able hous­ing (“St. An­thony soundly re­jects Lowry Grove plan,” Oct. 12). Many of us fought to re­tain the mo­bile home park in the vil­lage. And there are many of us who are work­ing to make our town ac­ces­si­ble to peo­ple need­ing af­ford­able hous­ing, and who are per­plexed by the City Coun­cil’s ac­tions. The coun­cil has made many pub­lic state­ments in sup­port of af­ford­able hous­ing. Sim­i­larly, the draft plan of St. An­thony’s 2018 Com­pre­hen­sive Plan states, “Be­cause only 1% of land is un­de­vel­oped, in­creas­ing den­sity al­lows for af­ford­able hous­ing, walk­a­bil­ity, and bet­ter op­por­tu­ni­ties for re­de­vel­op­ment.” It’s clear to them that this kind of project is part of the so­lu­tion to eas­ing the bur­dens on work­ing fam­i­lies. And yet, when pre­sented with the chance to have af­ford­able hous­ing, the coun­cil unan­i­mously voted “no.” So which is it, coun­cil? Or do the facts change dur­ing elec­tion sea­son?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.