Mims Park in Vine City Approved! (real estate, how much, home)

[Mal93]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

I can understand their fear and feel bad for them. They cannot afford to have their rents raised. The few who aren't elderly cannot afford to have their taxes increased. Most do want to see improvements, but they want to be around for the improvements and so that is where the fear comes in.

My family makes enough money that we do not have anything to fear but others, single parents, people who own but aren't considered "elderly" enough for property tax breaks, really do.

Gentrification is a real threat to people who want to remain in their neighborhoods and I truly understand that once these improvements are made, the poor people will be forced out. It has happened in Atlanta before and happens all over the country so it is a real threat to them.

Very well stated. As an Atlanta native, I remember the remnants of the old Lightning slum (where GWCC/Dome is now), and the constant displacement of those in public housing to areas with fewer and fewer amenities/access. I moved to SW ATL from midtown in 2007 and while Cascade Heights isn't urban pioneering, there are plenty of older/low income families south of me and close by the beltline with the same concerns.

While there are programs in place in SW ATL to help prevent flipping/displacement, to the older residents who have been pushed around ATL for 40+ years its hard for them to believe it won't happen again. I know it seems crazy to be opposed to a park or aesthetic improvement, but when you have lived most of your life in an area whose schools, public safety, job opportunities, and access to non-convenience store groceries have been largely underserved, I understand how some folks may be apprehensive.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Mal93

Very well stated. As an Atlanta native, I remember the remnants of the old Lightning slum (where GWCC/Dome is now), and the constant displacement of those in public housing to areas with fewer and fewer amenities/access. I moved to SW ATL from midtown in 2007 and while Cascade Heights isn't urban pioneering, there are plenty of older/low income families south of me and close by the beltline with the same concerns.

Isn't the Beltline under a mandate to provide affordable housing? As I recall, that was one of the major conditions of it being approved.

I know it seems crazy to be opposed to a park or aesthetic improvement, but when you have lived most of your life in an area whose schools, public safety, job opportunities, and access to non-convenience store groceries have been largely underserved, I understand how some folks may be apprehensive.

Seems like the city council could condition the park on the developer providing additional funding for affordable housing or rent subsidies. If the developer really wants this park and plans on investing millions in it, that shouldn't be too much of an additional burden.

[chiatldal]

I just think it bad logic to say let keep the area depress.

No one wants to live in the hood, I bet the opposition wants better of the neighborhood but they're contradicting themselves. Fearing improving a neighborhood is sad. That's saying let keep the area bad so can I live in the hood... sad.

[Mal93]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Isn't the Beltline under a mandate to provide affordable housing? As I recall, that was one of the major conditions of it being approved.



Seems like the city council could condition the park on the developer providing additional funding for affordable housing or rent subsidies. If the developer really wants this park and plans on investing millions in it, that shouldn't be too much of an additional burden.

Yes, as I mentioned there are several advocacy groups (ALTC & Anne E Casey Foundation, plus local groups) working with the Beltline to build affordable housing and help prevent displacement/flipping. I don't know how many objectives are set in stone, but here is a list of ideas discussed at one point: http://beltline.objectwareinc.com/Li...=1822&mid=3443

However there is still skepticism from those who may not be informed of the plans or who have failed to see much improvement that benefits their situation. plus it is unclear what protections there are for Beltline-adjacent communities not necessarily covered by Beltline programs. I agree that removing blighted and abandoned properties is a win, but a quick glance at the "Ruined Decatur" blog gives you an idea of how some may fear they will be simply priced out of their neighborhoods no matter what is promised in outreach meetings, or how the perception of adding a park doesn't address the kiddie gang issues/school quality/lack of shopping/food options.

typical Catch-22...there are empty buildings awaiting businesses all along the SW corridor, but without the income demographics, they won't build; can't achieve the income level until more residents with higher incomes move in; then gentrification fears take hold. I was really disappointed when Paul Luna decided to not open a place in Capitol View (around the same time Perkerson Park underwent improvements) but it is what it is for now (...waiting for the Ft Mac thing to kick in now...).

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Mal93

I was really disappointed when Paul Luna decided to not open a place in Capitol View (around the same time Perkerson Park underwent improvements) but it is what it is for now (...waiting for the Ft Mac thing to kick in now...).

Bummer. I had not heard anything further on this and assumed it was still in the works. Maybe it will happen yet.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

I just think it bad logic to say let keep the area depress.

No one wants to live in the hood, I bet the opposition wants better of the neighborhood but they're contradicting themselves. Fearing improving a neighborhood is sad. That's saying let keep the area bad so can I live in the hood... sad.

Neighborhood improvement can take many forms and it doesn't have to mean gentrification, and opposing such developments doesn't equate to a desire to keep the area depressed. I'm sure many of these folks aren't opposed to infrastructure investments such as resurfacing roads, repairing sidewalks, street lighting, etc. I'm also sure they'd like to see more everyday amenities come to their neighborhoods as well. It's just sad that they can't get a decent amount of any of it unless some new, swanky residential development gets built and Creative Loafing declares the neighborhood to be the new "it" place, despite the fact there are many tax-paying, law-abiding homeowners there who deserve just a little more than what they are getting.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Neighborhood improvement can take many forms and it doesn't have to mean gentrification, and opposing such developments doesn't equate to a desire to keep the area depressed. I'm sure many of these folks aren't opposed to infrastructure investments such as resurfacing roads, repairing sidewalks, street lighting, etc. I'm also sure they'd like to see more everyday amenities come to their neighborhoods as well. It's just sad that they can't get a decent amount of any of it unless some new, swanky residential development gets built and Creative Loafing declares the neighborhood to be the new "it" place, despite the fact there are many tax-paying, law-abiding homeowners there who deserve just a little more than what they are getting.

Amen.

[bryantm3]

we need a new law, whether it's in the city of atlanta or in the state, that if you've lived in the same place for at least 10 years, you get a property tax 'cap' so that you can't get charged any higher than you have in the past 10 years adjusted for inflation.

when it comes to mims park, the sooner this happens, the better!

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

we need a new law, whether it's in the city of atlanta or in the state, that if you've lived in the same place for at least 10 years, you get a property tax 'cap' so that you can't get charged any higher than you have in the past 10 years adjusted for inflation.

when it comes to mims park, the sooner this happens, the better!

I like this. Except that I would make the law only apply to those with lower, working-class, and lower-middle incomes--and some with middle-level incomes (depending on the area).


The details and how it was written would be the key. Looking at how they write caps/exemptions for the elderly would be a good (and wise) start.

And--it only should kick in areas with rapidly increasing tax rates or in areas with a strong potential to rapidly increase.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by aries4118

I like this. Except that I would make the law only apply to those with lower, working-class, and lower-middle incomes--and some with middle-level incomes (depending on the area).


The details and how it was written would be the key. Looking at how they write caps/exemptions for the elderly would be a good (and wise) start.

And--it only should kick in areas with rapidly increasing tax rates or in areas with a strong potential to rapidly increase.

Totally agree, but I would apply some cap to the higher income earners as well, many of whom don't much appreciate the high property taxes, are financially conscientious and are tempted to locate elsewhere to preserve their wealth from perceived waste. It does happen...