Frederick Street Park and Neighborhood update and PETITION DRIVE

hey...

1) what's currently in the area where they are planning on building? can you post some pictures?

2) is there any affordable housing in this new unit? 'cus we really need some places for folks to live here in Santa Cruz. I don't buy the 'not-in-my-backyard' arguments unless they have some good facts - such as environmental degradation, gentrification, etc.

The author has not posted any argument to oppose this project. I live on the other side of the harbor in high density housing and have no problem with it except that I wish it were closer to a park so the kids can play.

Perhaps this housing, in conjunction with the other housing will create a neighborhood dense enough to warrant improved transit? As a whole, I see infill as a benefit to our community, not some scourge. I think the author should write a stronger argument for opposition if the author expects the community to rally or the city to compromise and mitigate concerns.

Open spaces are nice, yes. But we have a serious housing problem in this town, thanks to the university, natural growth, san jose, etc etc. And it seems absurd to shoot down any project that would bring housing into this town without explaining exactly what the consequences would be. You lose a park. Ok. But, will there be low income or subsidized housing units in this complex. And if so, would that make it worth building there. Give us more information, again, if you are serious about this.

I wanted to respond to the 3 comments to this post as they ask very important questions which the original authors of this issue do not seem to care to answer. I suspect they realize if the real facts come out then they would lose the support they are gaining from the misinformation they are spreading.

My wife is one of the developers of this project. We and our partner plan to live in 2 of the homes with our families. We are not professional commercial developers looking to make a profit off the neighborhood and get out. We would not propose something we wouldn't be proud to live in.

What is currently on the property is 2 large square buildings formerly used by a Jehovas Witness congregation. Much of the property is paved parking and the rest is weeded grass.

The project will have at least one low-income affordable unit and a few studio aparments over the garages which will presumably be rented to people who can't afford their own homes. The original plan called for 4 lower-cost townhomes and more rental studios to provide a better mix of housing for various income levels. Unfortunately much of this had to be removed due to the very vocal opposition to the project by neighbors.

One comment states "You lose a park. OK, but...". THis is actually not true at all. The park is a beautiful 4 acres and will remain exactly as it is. This project is on a 1 acre private property next to the park. Park users will not be impacted in any way. In fact, the owners have offerred to build a raised crosswalk/speed hump at the park entrance which has been needed for years with no funding available.

There has been much misinformation posted about this project. The picture on this web site is outdated and many changes have been made in response to neighborhood feedback. The project is by city definition "Low Density" housing and includes easements for city maintenance vehicles and park users to access the park through the private property.

We, the owners, have been asking for the neighbors to work with us to either make an offer to purchase the property or make suggestions to improve the plans. With a few notable exceptions, mainly the neighbors bordering the property, none of the people pushing the opposition to this project have been willing to meet with us to cooperate and no offers have been proposed. Even if they do manage to purchase the property to use as a park, the city parks department has said (and quoted in 12/7 Good Times) that they do not have the funds to maintain additional park space in this part of town. They have also told us that they would prefer to put parks in other parts of town as this neighborhood already has 4 acres of one of the nicest parks in the city.

Thank you,
AB