TAD Amendment Passing is Bad for Atlanta (Berlin: low income, section 8)

[BringBackCobain]

I am worried that the TAD amendment allowing use of school funds has passed. It will be bad for Atlanta. This is why:

The power structure of Atlanta is worried because it is becoming expensive to live in the city, due to high demand. This means a diverse population, and one that does not necessarily cater to the political interests that have run this city since white flight occurred. If the demographics shift to a high income city instead of a poor, distressed city, the current political machine that has been in power since the 70's knows thaty they will be challenged.

Thier solution? Pass TADs that require 20% of units in a housing development to be "affordable". Affordable for condos means cheaper than the market rate of the whole complex. This is not the problem,
because usually riff raff could not buy a home anyway.

The problem with TADs lies with the aprtments. In Atlanta tad’s, 20% affordable apartments = section 8 eligibility. This means that they will accept section 8 vouchers from renters. These complexes they are building will essentially be 20% ghetto. No normal people are going to want to live in the regular units, and eventually the whole complex will turn ghetto. This is exactly what has happened at ICON and Park District in Atlantic Station.

This scheme was a brilliant way for the power structure to keep their power. They are licking their chops at the Beltline, which will add 5,000 affordable housing units, and more than 5,000 low income residents. Let us pray that the market turns around and these are not all apartments, because all the progress and diversity Atlanta has gained in the 2000's will be wiped out.

I do not think the voters realized this. Hopefully the city will survive this flood of subsidized housing. Otherwise, it will turn into Atlanta of the late 20th Century with a ghetto on every streetcorner (think bowen homes, East Lake Meadows, etc.)

[DeaconJ]

The TAD amendment is not only for residential development...it is to promote development of all kinds, and residential is only one type.

Let me see if I understand you...affordable housing = low-income residents = section 8 eligibility = ghetto? I thought a big part of the 20% affordable housing units were aimed toward police/teachers/civil servants who aren't considered low-income but can't afford the high price of housing in the city...and, I thought the developments that have been completed (Centennial Place for one) were very successful. I haven't heard anything about them becoming "ghetto".

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by DeaconJ

The TAD amendment is not only for residential development...it is to promote development of all kinds, and residential is only one type.

Let me see if I understand you...affordable housing = low-income residents = section 8 eligibility = ghetto? I thought a big part of the 20% affordable housing units were aimed toward police/teachers/civil servants who aren't considered low-income but can't afford the high price of housing in the city...and, I thought the developments that have been completed (Centennial Place for one) were very successful. I haven't heard anything about them becoming "ghetto".

I was thinking the same thing...Centennial Place, East Lake, and West Highlands (oh-so-beautiful) have been very successful.


The aim is for the city proper to not be an unaffordable Manhattan.

[south-to-west]

I really don't think you understand the nature of TADs.

First of all, TADs alone do not require every new residential development to have affordable housing. However, developers who opt to receive TAD funding for infrastructure improvements such as parking decks and street lamps are often required to allocate a portion of the proposed units as affordable which means that the units have to be priced in a range affordable to households that earn 80% of the area median household income. Often times, these households include public service workers such as police, firemen, and teachers.

Second of all, apartments aren't inherently terrible for a community. Not every household sees homeownership as the principle means for investing their money. A lot of times, people opt to rent in an area where housing prices are high, but their jobs and services are located nearby. Affordable does not mean Section 8.

In regards to Atlantic Station, it was the inflated housing market and rampant speculation that caused the over-supply of units. Everyone thought the gravy train of cheap mortgages would continue and many ended up losing their butts as a result.

TADs remain the most effective measure of redevelopment and economic development in Georgia in that it can be used as a mechanism to bridge the funding gap in making a project that would have a positive impact on a community financially feasible. Thank God that the amendment passed.

[oqua]

I don't understand; what exactly is wrong with Atlanta becoming more like 'unaffordable Manhattan'?? Less crime, nicer places, etc.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by oqua

I don't understand; what exactly is wrong with Atlanta becoming more like 'unaffordable Manhattan'?? Less crime, nicer places, etc.

It will breed even more sprawl; causing those who work in the city and that have more modest incomes (tons of people) to have to live further and further out.

[DeaconJ]

And the city will become exactly the perception of someone from another thread in this forum...neighborhoods full of the ultra-poor and the ultra-rich - exactly what no one wants it to be.

[gt6974a]

Originally Posted by aries4118

I was thinking the same thing...Centennial Place, East Lake, and West Highlands (oh-so-beautiful) have been very successful.


The aim is for the city proper to not be an unaffordable Manhattan.

Umm, I lived in Centenial Place and my apt. was broken into twice right after I moved out. The mgt. didn't even bother to tell residents there were break ins. The cops told my roommates it had been going on, and mgt wouldn't replace the door with a security door.

All they did was kick in the door to get in. One of my old roommates was actually in the apt., when they broke in the second time. They stole laptops, playstations, tv's, stereos, etc.

I wouldn't call Centennial successful. It is definately an example of section 8 ghetto.

[DeaconJ]

Yes, let's call Centennial Place "unsuccessful" because of an alleged break-in when you weren't even a resident. Let's burn it down! Get the torches and gather the townspeople!

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by gt6974a

Umm, I lived in Centenial Place and my apt. was broken into twice right after I moved out. The mgt. didn't even bother to tell residents there were break ins. The cops told my roommates it had been going on, and mgt wouldn't replace the door with a security door.

All they did was kick in the door to get in. One of my old roommates was actually in the apt., when they broke in the second time. They stole laptops, playstations, tv's, stereos, etc.

I wouldn't call Centennial successful. It is definately an example of section 8 ghetto.

You've relayed this story several times on this forum...

Weren't you living there in the late 90's/very early 2000's?

Break-ins happen...

I consider Centennial Place extremely successful...especially if you knew/experienced what was there before you arrived at Tech in 1996 (post-Olympics).

Centennial Place is basically like any other relatively safe intown neighborhood now.

The Techwood Homes was not. North Avenue was like a Berlin Wall...never, ever cross to go south. No one, I mean no one, would ever dream you could walk downtown from Tech by way of Techwood Drive and/or Luckie Street as late as early 1996. We were all in such shock when we could do this starting in late 1996...and especially by 1997/1998.