I favor Plan 2 primarily because its Housing component is NOT downtown, but on Transit Corridors.
Why: 1 It matches the dispersed model of services for low income people. 2 Fits regarding real estate downtown: high price to renovate (as Chancery Bldg), & high income buyers (Stone tower). 3 Federal incentives have evaporated, so we must rely on City and State incentives to develop affordable housing.
A question: can any of the unoccupied office spaces downtown be converted to middle income housing? Can that feature be incorporated into Plan 2?
Carol Ellis
Feb 24, 2026
Local Resident
[PDF page 1 of 1]
I favor Plan 2 primarily because its Housing component is NOT downtown, but on Transit Corridors.
Why: 1 It matches the dispersed model of services for low income people. 2 Fits regarding real estate downtown: high price to renovate (as Chancery Bldg), & high income buyers (Stone tower). 3 Federal incentives have evaporated, so we must rely on City and State incentives to develop affordable housing.
A question: can any of the unoccupied office spaces downtown be converted to middle income housing? Can that feature be incorporated into Plan 2?
Carol Ellis