Over a year of discussions and map-making, City Council has yet to collect any pertinent data to make such decisions.
Anyone willing to "refuse data" should not be allowed to participate in any decision making process.
Economic Impact Studies have NOT been performed.
Even cutting out 100 rentals is 100 less-filled restauraunt seats per night.
The weight given to "local opinions" of how a "nighborhood should feel" are not pertinent metrics when the outcast "non-locals" opinion is not even aknowledged.
Feel vs. Money. Only one is quantifyable.
Blanket zones are excessive and over-restrictive when no other remedy has been tried.
2 of the 3 points from their "engage" website, are emotionally-based appeals. "Community Character"
The 3rd point is "Housing supply and availability," which is being addressed with more multi-family housing and the re purposing of several hotels.
It is not the responsibility of private property owners to supply long-term housing.
Multi-family projects should be the regulated party before they start.
Brand new buildings, batches of hundreds of units, are made with minimum income requirements, this allowance is counter-prductive to their stated goal.
Metrics used in Council decision making process are not sufficient or pertinent
It is like they are buying a house, but wont look at their Debt to Income Ratio, they are buying it because it "feels good"
The ones allowed to make decisions have not even purchased their own investment properties, they have no idea what it takes to accomplish or operate, so they have no idea the actual impact.
___This data-less approach should disqualify Council Members from such regulations. It is clear that they do not posess industy experience and refuse to acknowlege the lack of 'quantifyable complaints.'
Granicus has only identified units for City Council, actual complaint data is not properly collected or verified.
Council continues to lean on data that does not wholly apply to actual complaints and issues.