Putting the "Expensive" In Afforable Housing As City Contemplates the Old LTV Tower

• Sorry about the double post at a nonsensical interval. It was a Dada thing.

• The Downtown Connection TIF has a balance of $77,994,322. Meaning, as the city puts it in the 1600 Pacific proposal, "This would exceed the remaining amount available of funds available for redevelopment projects in the DCTIF Budget."

• Closing the tunnels and sky bridges would cost nothing - other than a lot of political heat. It would put tons of people on the streets, which would make them safer and more vibrant. Then developers would be willing to do things downtown without all of the really serious incentives that come out of the taxpayers pockets.

• How much money is left in the DTD tif I heard it was running out and with the rising deficit it won't be replenished.

• Thanks for the clarification. I seem to recall them putting all their eggs in one basket with the Merc. (Jury's still out on whether it paid off; no development or even business has come to that end of downtown, but hey, it's the Great Freakin' Depression over here.)

• I think there's a great deal of concern regarding the Merc -- because, consider, Forest City was also going to develop the former TXU properties behind the old Grand, till recently turning them over to the Hamiltons, gratis. But we shall see: I was over at the Grand this weekend, and I see that Main Street Garden Park is moving forward. And, who know, perhaps there will be a UNT downtown law school yet. If only there was the money in the bill to fund it.

• Thanks for the clarification. I seem to recall them putting all their eggs in one basket with the Merc. (Jury's still out on whether it paid off; no development or even business has come to that end of downtown, but hey, it's the Great Freakin' Depression over here.)

• I think the fear is that putting it in one place will deplete whatever subsidies would be available for future affordable-housing projects that might come down the pike in the future. Ultimately, the city would like 10 percent of all housing downtown to be qualified as "affordable."

• Is "affordable" a euphemism for Single Room Occupancies (SROs) -- essentially one step above a halfway house? Is it a euphemism for subsidized, below-market-value housing? I guarantee there are hordes of 20- and single-30-somethings in this town who would call a $625, decently-appointed efficency, or a $700 small one-bedroom (or even a $1000 two-bedroom) affordable, and would flock to downtown. Is it inviting the proliferations of crack dens to offer living quarters at perhaps a scoche below the $1-per-square-foot mark? Why would "certain" council members fear receptionists, phone-room managers and bank tellers at night only?

TotalComments: 9