Condos or apartments? The Point Edwards Dilemma
By Gary Haakenson
(Reprinted with permission from his blog, Gary Haakenson’s Random Stuff, which he writes “as a private citizen.” The former mayor of Edmonds, Haakenson now serves as Deputy Snohomish County Executive.)
It was 2002 and I was in my third year as Mayor of Edmonds, a charming, seaside town in Washington. Our not so neighborly county to the south was suggesting that they would like to build their state of the art sewage treatment plant in our city. Never mind that we had our own. Never mind that we wouldn’t be hooking up to theirs. Never mind that they envisioned it on a hill high above Edmonds that possessed views that wouldn’t quit.
On the site was an abandoned oil tank farm owned by the Union Oil Company of California. They were in the process of cleaning up the hazardous site to meet federal and local standards. And of course they were interested in selling the parcel. As mayor, I was “uninterested” in having a sewage treatment plant on this great piece of property. The citizens of Edmonds banded together to join the fight.
Hope showed up with the arrival of a developer who had a grand plan for building a series of condominium buildings on the slope above Edmonds. On any given day, a condo developer would not be welcomed with open arms into this community. But this day was different. The proposed project would keep the evil emperor from the south from building his x-large porta-potty in the city. It was a well designed project with nice amenities and as I mentioned, spectacular views.
Before the oil tanks had been removed, I met with the developer, the property owner and city staff on the hillside. I climbed to the top of the tallest tank to the south of the property. I was on a very thin narrow metal ladder attached (I hoped) to the side of the tank. It was a clear, brilliant, blue sky day and I could see for miles. I looked in all directions, except down 
When I reached terra firma again, I proclaimed that I would love to live on that very spot, when I retired.
When I reached terra firma again, I proclaimed that I would love to live on that very spot, when I retired.I was thrilled that this project would be built. The city’s planning and design boards approved of the plans, the City Council asked for more open space to be included and the developer agreed. This project was approved with a vision from all who reviewed it, that it would be a very well done condominium project in the city. Buildings were spaced appropriately. Landscaping would be complimentary to the buildings. And each of the buildings took advantage of the views. In addition there would be pocket viewing areas for all to sit and enjoy.
Parking was carefully planned. Looking up from the city below gave one a look at what would appear to be a resort on a hill. The purpose was dual, build a nice project and keep sewage out. It was a common vision shared by Edmonds residents, the developer and elected officials. It may have been the only time in the history of anti-condo Edmonds that people joined together to support such a project.
Through some bumps in the road, and the economy, the project was built. By most accounts it was a success in its dual purpose. The treatment plant was not located in Edmonds and a nice residential development was built. The downturn in the economy left one building pad unbuilt upon. The tank that I climbed to check out the view just happened to be located on this pad. In my estimation, one of the prime locations on the site.
Recently I have been following the story that a new developer wants to use that last, best parcel to build apartments rather than condos. I can understand why. More units=more $. And I think I remember that maybe this development was built under a master plan that allows a certain number of multi-family units to be built. And even with the addition of the proposed apartments, that number would still be under the allowable threshold.
But I struggle with the rationale of the addition of apartments into an all-condo residential neighborhood. I can’t help but wonder how many condo owners would have not bought in the development had they known that apartments would have been added to the mix later on.
I know that the original developer had a vision for Point Edwards. Planning staff and city council had a vision for Point Edwards. I know that I had a vision for Point Edwards. We all shared the same vision and it did not include apartments. That empty parcel should have condos that match the rest of the development.I hope that the original, well thought out vision will see the light of day. After all, I am getting close to retirement and I still remember the view from the top of the tank!
To encourage constructive community dialogue, all commenters must use their real names, first and last. Comments from users with names that don't comply with this policy will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation.
Please!! Let us not surrender this Beautiful piece of land to develop apartments. More condos at a reasonable height and within the vision originally set forth by the planning commission would be acceptable. I remember the dispute with King Co and the uproar, I was there and spoke at the King CO meetings and if necessary I will again be there to protest!!
Again NO APARTMENTS ON PT EDWARD !!!!!
An excellent review of the history of this project! And I remember it quite well because I was a member of the Washington Tea Party that, with a lot of guidance from Gary, obviously was successful in keeping King County’s waste water treatment plant (Brightwater) out of our city.
Many of the residents of the 261 condos that now make up Point Edwards are very unhappy with having a large apartment house as their neighbor. And probably just as many do not like the building having 5 floors. What they all need to realize is that taking their frustrations to the city is of no value – because there is nothing illegal about what the developer proposes doing. However the developer’s ethics are questionable. As Gary has said “I can’t help but wonder how many condo owners would have not bought in the development had they known that apartments would have been added to the mix later on.” So the condo owners need to focus their ire on the developer – that’s the only hope for change.
I have spoken to several residents who do not like the proposed façade for the building. That is within the control of the city’s Architectural Design Board. When the Board reviewed the proposal in December, they rejected the proposed façade and are requiring the developer to make changes. Those changes will be reviewed at a public meeting of the ADB.
I support Mr. Haakenson’s viewpoint and appreciate the history of Pt. Edwards. The vision that the builder had then should be continued: a beautiful condo building with 30 spacious units just like the other buildings at Pt. Edwards, underground parking, views galore, and gorgeous landscaping to match the natural environment.
This is an informative and helpful review of the pending/proposed development of Lot 50 at Point Edwards. While this would be outside the existing Point Edwards Condominium, it would be sited above the existing structures along Pine Street and would rise 58 feet above ground level at the NE corner, facing downtown Edmonds and the waterfront. As a resident of the PE Condominium, I share the concerns of a large group of residents about the mass and design of this proposed structure. Following the Dec. 19th hearings of the Edmonds AEB, a group of residents have pursued efforts to better inform the community about this proposel. As a result of the ADB actions, the Developer is now directed to redraft the proposal and resubmit the request. This will be then the topic for a future ADB public hearing. There is a web Petition now on line at ‘www.change.org/petitions/edmonds-wa-city-council-redefine-50-pine-permit’ with over 500 signatures. A graphic of the proposed structure on the skyline is attached. Check it out. Further information may be obtained from the Co-Chairs of the current review group by contacting Jeff Yocom (jeff@yocom.org) or Reid Schoenfeld (reidschoenfeld@gmail.com).
Tom Waggener
I was also part of the group opposing King County’s sewage treatment plant. Gary gave us a very good history. None of us could foresee a change from condos to multiple apartments. While I agree that the developer is responsible, can’t we look at the way we permit development? Certainly the facade is just as important as the number of residents. When a developer looks at his plans money made will be more important than pleasing citizens. This is generally a conflict. Working together to avoid
such situations is very important. Anyone have some good ideas?
Gary:
That was a great piece of work, to rally virtually the whole city to that cause and all in record time. It felt like little ole Edmonds took on and defeated the giant all by it’s itsy bitsy self. Fond memories Mr. Mayor on that one.
I know I sound like a looney! insane!
I know no one is going to listen, let alone think about it…
but I do appreciate the opportunity to express myself. Thank you.
here goes . . .
A Great View – belongs to everyone and no one!
I grew up in a family “owned” home, but never chose to “owne” when I had the opportunities – and now suffer the consequenses…
However – the very concept of OWNING the land??? That it is MINE??? for ME???
Is that REALLY what YOUR God intended??? From what I’ve heard, it is definitely not the intent of the Creater of the people who’s land we all now occupy.
It really still belongs to the First People!
and in this case, land with such a fantastic view??? Obviously, we’re talking multi-million dollar homes.
Do you REALLY want to continue the insane concept of rewarding those few people that have been the best at taking from the many?
Do you REALLY want your progeny to perpetuate this pyramid scheme of rewarding the most the people that have taken the most, at the expense of everyone and in particular those not as high on the pyramid?
Yes, I know, it worked really well, depending how high you were in the pyramid scheme.
The state will be setting up a reservation system for ferries in the near future. This site would give a good location for a parking lot below and with the upper floors a perfect view for a resturant and casino. Working the the First People would make it the best casino around, view, food, and gambling. The city revenues from a good casino could exceed a $1m per year. It would probably be necessay to cut a deal the the condo owners at PE for some form of reveune sharing in exchange for the added traffic.
This is not an Edmonds issue only. Walk a few feet south of the site, and some wonderful homes in Woodway would also be impacted. Not just the view, but traffic, noise from a large building, etc. If folks are looking for other comrades in arm, check with our Woodway neighbors who also won’t benefit from this project.
As a resident of the condo’s I can verfiy the past Mayor Haakenson’s sense that many may not have purchased had they known that apartments were going in on the lot at 50 Pine Street. We purchased last spring and were told that “Building 10″, the last of the condo associations structures, would be built in the not to distant futher as condo’s. Not one person who purchases prior to December 2012 was told that the developer was going to erect a five story 89 unit appartment building! More than a few are considering what channel of recompense might be available.
None the less, many want to work within the existing procedures with the City Planning Department and the ADB to see that codes are properly applied, the master plan is followed and that whatever is built is a credit to the community which does not reduce property values or present a sight blite to the community.
The developer owns the land and has right to build, but must build consistent with the Master Plan to which he agreed and the ECDC applicable to the zoning. While one would hope that prior committments and ethics would control development decisions, there is little historical perspective to support such hopes.
I disagree with Mr. Wambolt as it is my sense that the developer is not properly applying the Edmonds Community Design Codes [ECDC] and has significantly deviated from the Master Plan which is to control all development within the land subject to the contract rezone that Mayor Haakenson so eleoquently discussed. Mr. Wambolt is correeted that the developer has the legal right to build; however, he must conform to the requirements – which he has not leading to the ADB rejection.
I had not spent much time at Point Edwards until recently when I moved my mother into this development. I now realize what a great place it is to live for all the residents.
The current development now appears to be under assault by the proposed 58 foot apartment building inconsistent with current existing condo vision. I too agree with Mr. Haakenson’s well written view that the original well thought vision will continue for the residents of Point Edwards and entire city.
I agree with Mr. Wambolt on his point questioning the ethics of this developer. Mr. Waggener, thank you for the website information. I checked and found out just how hideous this proposed structure will be. Totally unacceptable, unethical, and unfair to Point Edwards, the houses in Woodway behind, and all of Edmonds. I signed the petition as well and willing to offer support in any way.
By the way, I hope the comment about a casino up there was a joke.
I don’t understand what the difference is. The assertion that apartments = more units is completely inane. Why? Why is it more units if rented than owned. They are the EXACT SAME THING. So it’s condos, which are little boxes that people own and live in – or it’s apartments which are little boxes that people rent and live in. I don’t understand… are you saying you don’t like the number of units? or the ownership structure???? How units are owned has nothing to do with number of units. But it does have implications for the community. i.e, If an owner doesn’t upkeep their property, there is a lengthy, expensive process neighbors must go through to force compliance with common rules and regs, whereas a problem tenant can be evicted rather quickly and easily.
I’m assuming no one is prejudiced here, that is – you aren’t for owner occupied units instead of the exact same units rented out, just because you think renters will be poorer or more colorful people than owners. RIGHT? Maybe you want people to move in who will stay for a long time and be committed to the community. I agree that’s nice, but many people have to move periodically for work now and prefer not to be locked in to ownership, while investors may buy and then rent out a condo unit… which is no different from it being an apartment!
The developer wants apartments instead of condos because that is where the market is right now. Credit is tight and a lot of people got burned by the down market and are no longer interested in buying – But they are still interested in those views and they will pay a good rent for them. I just bought a house because I want to stay put and raise my kids with a yard and garden but, I have several successful friends (head of a film production company, PR exec, dentist, other management type positions) – who say they will never buy a house or condo because of the way they watched friends get ripped off in the housing market and because they want the flexibility to take a new job to advance their career whenever the opportunity arises. They see ownership as an obstacle to living freely and a terrible investment. They tried to convince me to keep renting and not buy. Why do you feel like they are some kind of threat to you? I really don’t get it.
My questions to the curmudgeons are: What exactly are you against? What would you be for (maximum number of units? height? type? materials?) How does the FAR and Density of your housing compare to that? Would that be practical (profitable) in today’s market from the business perspective of someone who has invested in the site? What does it mean to “own” “private” property in a “free” country if your neighbors get to decide every aspect of what you can or can not build on it? Since the city has a fixed land area and only collects taxes within it’s boundaries, what would you be willing to pay annually in extra taxes if we forgo the revenue that could be generated by allowing X # of units to be built on this parcel?
The big difference between condos and apartments is ownership. Despite the high rents apartments at this location may command, the people that would live in apartments would not “own” them. I know I will be blasted for these comments, but having seen what some apartment dwellers do over many years I don’t have any hesitation in saying that many have no respect for other people’s property.
I have seen apartments that have been trashed to the point they just have to be gutted to be repaired. You can bet, also, that at some point some scumbag will find a way to rent one of these apartments and then you’ll have a bunch of unsavory characters coming and going at all hours of the day and night.
Of course all of this could still happen with condos. A condo can be bought and then rented out. I’ve seen that happen too but it is less likely.
I sympathize with people who express legitimate concerns over height, massing, finish materials, traffic, etc. though I probably have a higher tolerance or desire for density because I like the idea of living in a vibrant place with lots of activity and low taxes. As an owner of housing a few times now, I have probably done quite a few unsavory or obnoxious things including having people coming and going at odd hours and playing music or working with tools late into the night. The joy of ownership is when my neighbor complains, I tell him to F off cuz I ain’t goin nowhere. There’s no management to call. They could call the police, and let me tell you that’s a great way to improve relations with a quick-tempered Swede… On the other hand, I’ve made small improvements in every apartment or home I’ve ever rented, and I’ve had to show respect for my neighbors because I was scared of getting evicted and having to immediately come up with 3 months rent for a new place or else be homeless. Think about this for a moment; Would a group of neighbors facing a nuisance situation have more success badgering the management of an apartment building to evict an unruly tenant or, trying to get a condo association to deal with an unruly owner through buyout or forced sale. Seriously…. It is WAY WAY easier to successfully deal with problem tenants than owners.
While I understand the perception renters can be dismissive of property value and maintenance, my experience has been that landlords are generally more reluctant to properly invest in upkeep than tenants are. This holds more true for owners of individual older homes or small buildings than for large buildings which have economies of scale and market pressure that typically push them to be better managed and often better kept up than many, many private residences. Condos are notoriously difficult to keep up because everyone has to agree to impose fees on themselves and the demographic skews to people living on fixed incomes who are quite reluctant to accept increasing costs. This can really be true in a town like Edmonds where many current owners would not be able to buy at today’s prices and face taxes on growing valuations that diminish their maintenance budget capacity. Restricting the supply of housing too much where it is in demand drives up prices and destroys our ability to support a healthy economy beyond the housing sector. Increasing supply with appropriate and tasteful density helps keep prices more stable and taxes low.
Having a mix of ownership and rental allows for a range of housing choices. Instead of the whole city becoming an enclave for rich, old, snobs we could decide that it is important to have different opportunities – so that a child born here, like my son or daughter, has the chance to live in a rental unit with his struggling parents, and to watch their hard work pay off with the purchase of a home, and to have his grandparents near by in a condo or apartment or assisted living, and to move into his own apartment above some downtown shops while he attends school, and to buy a condo or live work unit while building a career and to buy a bigger house or condo when ready to raise children. You can’t have an all-condo community. It’s like having an all vanilla ice cream assortment. Every neighborhood needs a mix of offerings, otherwise it’s just a subdivision, not a community, This is something that communists and urban renewal modernists got completely wrong and we should not repeat – they thought everyone should have the exact same thing to be equal, and they put everyone in block towers, but what is needed for real equality of opportunity is a diverse array of choices and respect for market-based outcomes that reflect every individuals needs / desires at different stages of life. The market right now is very good for apartments and not so for condos. Should we just throw capitalism overboard and tie up the red bandanas because we are afraid of renters and don’t like developers?
Like I said, I can understand the concerns about the building fitting in physically because we’ll all have to look at it for a while, but I can not get on board if the fight is about ownership structure. I have never seen good evidence to substantiate the assertion that a luxury rental building would draw a noticably more unsavory group of residents than would luxury condo units. At the low end of the market, data may show some differences in behavior of owners or renters(?), but at the high end I suspect, the difference is going to be nil. With the views in this building, you are definitely looking at high end wealthy renters. If 1/100th of the problems feared actually materialized, I would be terrifically shocked.
Mr. Goodman presents questions and raises issues that are worthy of discussion. I will attempt to provide my views as to appropriate responses.
Mr. Goodman’s comment that, “Why is it more units if rented than owned. They are EXACTLY THE SAME THING.”, confuses the true facts. Mr. Goodman is confused as to why people see a difference between condo’s and apartments. With all due respect, they are not the same. There is nothing wrong with apartments; I’ve rented in many places during my life. Most people are probably like me, while mindful of where they live more care is taken with something they own. Further, an owners’ commitment to the community is much deeper and respectful than that of a renter. There is a distinct difference to the community, as reflected in Mr. Haakenson’s article, and simply denying a fact doesn’t make it go away.
The comment also ignores the facts as to the issue of density. When people purchased condo units in the development last year they were told, prior to purchase, that a 60 unit condo building was to be built at 50 Pine Street. In point of fact, a building permit was issued to the developer for just such a 60 unit building that perfectly matched the existing structures in the development. People expect such statements to be honored, particularly when it plays a role in their decision to purchase. However, the developer let that permit lapse and now seeks to build an 89 unit apartment building. Mr. Goodman, 60 is not the same as 89 – just like apartments are not the same as condos. That is nearly a 50% increase in density, which does make a difference in noise levels, traffic and a host of other quality of life factors.
Mr. Goodman ask’s “What would you be for?” Speaking for myself I would be for the developer building that 60 unit building that was previously part of the master plan and for which a building permit was issued. Then the neighborhood would be of complamentary appearance, blend well with the environment and look like it belongs. He would be honoring the commitment he made to people who purchased from him. If he then decided call that building an ‘apartment house’ and lease, the building will fit into the community and the density would not alter the quality of life expected from the promises made when people purchased.
Mr. Goodman’s statement – “The developer wants apartments instead of condos because that is where the market is right now.” – is simply a statement that notwithstanding prior commitments the developer will go where the greatest return can be found. None the less, if the developer feels condos and apartments are the same things, then construct the building planned previously but just lease it and call it an apartment house – after all they are the same, right?
I don’t believe it will be Mr. Goodman’s friends who rent the proposed units. He describes his friends as both moneyed and intelligent, which if true they would know that on today’s market real estate is a better investment than the stock market. No matter what one’s political view, it appears Congress is bound to keep that as a truth for the near term. There have been a number of units sold in the last 12 months in the development in the very high six figures and some in the seven figure range. There is a market for the units that were promised. Mr. Goodman’s ‘friends’ are not a “threat” to us or anyone, it is the developers failure to be true to promises that caused us to purchase that is an issue.
If “curmudgeons” means one who expects a developer to hold true to the statements made to induce people to purchase, then I am in fact a CURMUDGEON and proud of it. It is my hope that I have been clear what I am “against.
The City rezoned this property as a contract rezone with a Compressive Plan that presented certain requirements. The developer purchased the land to ‘capitalize’ on that rezoning and presented a Master Plan for approval. The City approved the Master Plan which becomes the document that binds what can be built on the land. The developer made money over many years with the sale of the condo’s built under the Master Plan. Profits derived in part by the promises made to the purchasers. If apartments and condos are the same, why didn’t the developer tell purchasers that an apartment building would be built on 50 Pine Street? Why did the developer keep that a secret until he had to file with the City for the new plans (even then notifying NO ONE)?
The developer made an investment with commitment to the Master Plan and then took many years to build out. The risk of the developer’s investment decision increases with time as the economy and the real estate market is subject to change. Who should bear the burden of that risk, those who purchased believing what they were told OR the developer who decided to accept such risks? This CURMUDGEON doesn’t feel obliged to bear the weight of the developers risk taking decisions. The commitments of the past constrain the profits of tomorrow, sadly it seems the developer can’t understand this basic ethical principal.
Jeff Yocom
The original plan for the final building at Point Edwards called for 60 condo units in 3 stories with underground parking. The new plan with 89 rental units in 5 stories with an above ground parking lot accommodating over 70 cars is a vastly different proposition. No matter how many cosmetic adjustments are made to the exterior facade, it will be the proverbial lipstick on a pig — the height and massive footprint of the building will loom over the Edmonds Bowl for all to see, not just the immediate neighbors. As a resident at Point Edwards, I am very concerned about the traffic and parking impacts the 50% increase in residents will have on Pine Street. The prospect of one huge property owner in the midst of the private homeowner residents in Point Edwards and Woodway is very concerning. The motivations of a non-resident, investor-beholden commercial landlord are purely financial; the interests and needs of temporary tenants are — understandably — less likely to be vested in the local community. The insinuation in Mr Goodman’s comments (above) that perhaps the real objections are socio-economic and even racist is extremely offensive and thoroughly baseless.
The developer — the same developer who did such an excellent job with the Pt Edwards condos — is on record with his plan to develop 2000 apartment units in the Seattle area over the next few years despite expert warnings of a projected rental glut. It seems as though the Edmonds master plan for Point Edwards is in danger of being usurped by the developer’s master plan if the City of Edmonds approves the apartment building.
Jeff,
You make good points regarding holding the development to 60 units and holding the developer to an approved plan which specified condo units. Protecting owners reasonable expectations of value is one of the primary purposes of development regulation. Dana makes a great distinction between the impacts of above ground vs. underground parking. That has tremendous impact on value and would be a primary concern that I would share with you.
I personally don’t care about 5 stories instead of 3 as long as the design fits well on the hill and clearly there is some work to do there. As for 89 units or 60, I feel those are small differences. Everyone can have a different opinion or comfort level with density, but I would dispute the notion that density always negatively impacts property value. The WW2 and Baby boom generations had a strong preference for low density life that has been reflected in estimation of values over the past half-century, but the people who will buy your condo in 10 – 20 years will be gen-X and millenials that have a much stronger preference for living in dense, vibrant, mixed use areas. They are much less interested in ownership of anything and view flexibility and experience as more central to freedom than the accumulation of property. Call me crazy but I would think having aparment units in the condo development would place a great market of potential buyers directly at your doorstep.
If you want to make a case with stats you can argue on the percentage of units as part of the building -60 vs. 89 (a scary 50% increase), but I would be inclined to look at the percentage of the entire project represented – which is a more holistic view of the difference in neighborhood level value. If there are 261 units currently, then adding 60 is a 23% increase, adding 89 is a 34% increase, which is not insignificant, but is also not a game-changing explosion of growth. The key question is at what level do roads hit a tipping point where congestion causes lost time and wasted fuel. As a certified transportation planner I would be suspect of anyone who told me 29 units is a big difference in this location. 2900 yes. 29 no way. It’s simply not physically possible.
Dana, I stated the assumption that objections are not motivated by prejudice not as an insinuation, but as a check to anyone for whom that might be true because I want to address only the valid concerns people have with a thoughtful discussion. I don’t have time to argue with racists and snobs.
I’m still waiting for someone to provide evidence of some material difference in value or crime rates or other impacts based on identical multi-family properties of owner-occupied vs. rental housing, beyond the assertion that “at some point some scumbag will find a way to rent one of these apartments.” I find it astonishingly remarkable that no scumbags have sufficient wealth to purchase a condo. Or at least no one is concerned about it. I’m intrigued to know whether there is a substatial difference that has been documented in the moral rectitude of high-end luxury condo purchasers vs. high end luxury apartment renters. If so, I would better understand why New York’s Park Ave apartment buildings are home to some of the worst Wall st. crooks. I guess if these units were just 2nd, 3rd or 7th homes for rich playboys then some wild party’s could be in store. Of course, development or not, I could buy an existing unit tomorrow and crank up the bad behavior… I can afford a few noise violations, etc. with petty cash so, How long would it take the condo association to buy me out? Eviction of renters can happen in 24 hrs.
As a renter in the past, I have been very actively engaged in the communities where I’ve lived, and I’ve known plenty of owners whom were not. Many renters are long time members of the community, and the thought that they are “temporary” and “less likely to be vested in the local community” just because they can’t afford a down payment or have chosen not to own and carry debt, is a bias of overgeneralization that I think falls short of describing reality. Should we also describe everyone over 70 as “temporary” residents because most won’t be paying taxes long enough to cover a full 30 year bond? Of course, apartment dwellers will have some different interests than condo dwellers so perhaps the fear is more about active residents than those who will remain unengaged. It is correct that institutional investors have different interests, and dealing with one owner is a different proposition than many, but we will never achieve a perfectly equal property allocation among individuals, so imbalanced relationships are a fact of life and business that we should be prepared to encounter. While some concern has been expressed in real estate circles about the volume and moreso timing of rental projects now in construction or planning, if “experts” were warning of a projected rental glut, lending would stop and developers would switch their projects to condos. Risk tolerance is far below what it was 7 years ago.
Just curious, are condo owners at Point Edwards currently allowed to rent their units? If so, what number or % are rented out? Restrictions? If not, would you be open to allowing a % of units to be rented at any time?
I respect the concerns of the project’s opposition, and I’m asking for you to respect my take on it as well. We don’t need to agree here and now or in the future, on this or anything else. I don’t think there is a substantial difference in community impacts dependent upon the ownership structure of this small piece of the overall development and I think government should leave that matter to the market to decide.
For me, hard lines are great for arguments, but not for progress. As a professional planner, I would probably advise council defer to neighbors concerns and hold the developer to the agreement for 60 condo units, but… allow them to hold and lease the units as apartments for a period of up to 10 years so they could be absorped into the market as conditions support that.