While I trust that the Town's council and staff will vet the details and consider other alternatives if they are available, I do think the town should move forward on increasing the available affordable housing, and this seems a reasonable step, so: yes.

Hi Bob! Using the payment in leu funds is fine for this type of project. Policies supporting affordable housing is good. BUT NO TAX DOLLARS TO SUBSIDIZE affordable housing.

Hat of to the Town Board for their leadership. Very pleased with the decisions and direction.

PS - Did I mention no tax dollars to subsidize housing?!? :)

YES!

Absolutely! It is in line with the Town’s Strategic Plan to work with a variety of partners to create new, affordable workforce and elderly housing.

I'm all for affordable housing but how about making a rule where developers have to contribute to shared use walking / biking paths through in the neighborhoods where they build? The status of greenways and inter-neighborhood paths is really sad in Davidson. I just saw that a new CAR connector and bridge is being added across the greenway between Hudson Pl and Robert Walker. We need more sustainable transportation not less! That new edition is already going to introduce way more traffic, but now we're cutting through the tiny bit of greenway sections we do have to add more car routes for them? So sad.

I am willing to use PIL funds for this purpose but am opposed to using other town funds for affordable housing. We have a long-established non-profit that the town has supported in various ways throughout their long history and they get private donations as well. According to my tracking of the about 2.4 million we had in the PIL fund if both this project goes through and a similar proposal for homes in Summers Walk, including funds spent on buying 5 houses on the West and critical repairs etc between $400-$500K will be left in fund. We could probably only do one or two additional projects like this with what is available. I also think we need to review all the deed restrictions because they vary and I don't think it fair to the occupants of those homes to have been given different "deals".

I am also very much in favor of using PIL funds for this purpose and in this way. The town gains access to multiple new units of affordable housing stock at a fraction of the cost of outright purchases and doesn't slide down the slippery slope of directly being the property owner. This is an innovative technique to more quickly deploy PIL funds for their specified purpose while leveraging multiple partners to achieve a common goal.
Other developers/builders with growth plans in process should be looking at this model and working with the town to meet our goals.

I think every development is unique, and I don't feel that one model fits all. I do think that the Town needs to work cooperatively with developers in the provision of affordable housing. Speaking from experience, the Town places many requirements on developers that have nothing to do with public safety or health, yet they drive up the cost of development, or reduce revenue, thus making the provision of affordable housing impossible. No developer wants to go through a conditional process, so it's easiest to just make the PIL, even if the developer wants to provide units. I know it's not popular to be seen as negotiating with a developer, but if the Town wants actual units (without raising taxes to provide them - which is the real answer), the Town needs to take an approach of "we want affordable units, what can we do for you to make that happen?" The Town might be surprised that there are ways to work with developers and get affordable housing, but it needs to be a cooperative approach.