A group of artists and small-business owners fought back forcefully against the proposal, arguing that housing would make artist studios and commercial space unaffordable, and new residents would prove incompatible with nearby businesses.
“It has been loud and it has been constant,” said Democratic Councilor Chip Mason, of the dissent. Mason represents Ward 5, which includes the area under debate.
Although the vote was unanimous, the council didn’t offer wholehearted support for the opponents’ argument per se. The resolution it passed said nothing about housing being a bad idea. Instead, it made the case that “opposition has diverted attention from the broader discussion of the future of the South End.” Mayor Miro Weinberger offered a similar explanation when he announced last month that he’d be withholding support for the proposal.
“It has become a distraction,” reiterated Councilor Joan Shannon, a Democrat who represents the South District covering the South End, who was the only other councilor to speak on the resolution. However, arguing that “housing has a tendency to take over all other uses,” she made it clear that she is against the idea.
Mason took a slightly different tack, acknowledging, “Any place we propose putting housing there are objections.” He also pointed out that two weeks earlier, the council passed a housing action plan, pledging to encourage more housing in order to reduce costs for constituents.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Many of us have explained, convincingly, at many Ward meetings, why new housing should not be built in the Enterprise District. Ms. Shannon says we were a distraction? Please. A very vocal majority is opposed, for good reason. The Council opposes putting housing in “at least for now”? Sure, why don’t they wait until we’re all dead. Then everyone will have forgotten us, and our objections.
The true distraction, was the unwillingness of City planners to look at the debate about housing in the Enterprise District head on, with appropriate public discussion, analysis and a study of pros and cons. Despite research and case studies from other industrial areas that have been lost to housing, the topic was largely ignored. This was exemplified in the February workshops when all three options for the area included housing and a completed Champlain Parkway.
Gentrification is already happening in the Enterprise district, but that is not a reason for taking action that will accelerate this process and threaten economic viability.
When members of the public; businesses, residents, activists and artists came together to say “let’s keep the Enterprise District enterprising!”, it was an example of an engaged citizenry and should not be minimized as a “distraction”. At 27% of the total South End and 4% of the City’s area and the provider of 20% of the jobs, I think there is sound thinking for holding off on housing, and visioning something more economically beneficial for the area for the long term. Let housing happen outside this small district.
Lastly, the call for more housing without specific goals and thoughtful discussion about the exact types of housing needed means that even if housing had been allowed in the ED, it would have done very little to solve the problem. With space as precious as it is, let’s be sure that when housing is built it’s what people can afford, which is below market rate. Even Eric Farrell’s proposal for 770 units on the BC land only included roughly 35% below market rate housing. How will this problem be solved if the distribution of what is built it not matched with what is needed? And for the record, I would like to see the BC land be turned into the next Oakledge or Red Rocks park.
I have heard that the planning commission intends to try another angle at the meeting tonight. City Hall, Room 12, ground floor, 6:30 PM to 8:00 PM. I’ll be there. If they give up on plans to put Housing in the Enterprise Zone (distracting due to all the resistance they get from residents), we can all can move on to reasonable plans.