- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Mid-City Entergy Site Development
Posted on 3/3/15 at 11:05 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 11:05 am
Thoughts? It's an abandoned site that still needs investors to develop - I don't even know how you would do that with an 'affordable housing' component.
Business Report
Business Report
5
Posted on 3/3/15 at 11:09 am to BRIllini07
I thought that was supposed to be the BR terminal of the BR-NOLA train line?
Posted on 3/3/15 at 11:11 am to BRIllini07
There nothing but "affordable" housing in that area right now.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 11:12 am to BRIllini07
quote:
Specifically, Wicker says she and others have problems with the way the RDA has decided the former Entergy property—which was given to the agency in 2013—would best be redeveloped as a mixed-use project that includes commercial and market-rate multifamily units. Also, Duany’s plans didn’t include any mention of affordable housing.
Why do these council members get upset when planners don't set their developments up to become slums filled with crime within 5 years of completion?
These people would like to perpetuate the shitholes in which their "constituency" lives and it's absolutely mind blowing.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 11:18 am to BRIllini07
quote:
I thought that was supposed to be the BR terminal of the BR-NOLA train line?
According to The Advocate article, it was, but that part was absent from the plans presented. So maybe they scrapped that idea?
Posted on 3/3/15 at 11:52 am to BRIllini07
The political grand-standing for "affordable housing" at that meeting was comical. It looks like an interesting plan, but I doubt the desired result will ever happen. The people of the neighborhood complain about there not being enough affordable housing and the houses being rundown. Do they think rents are going to go down if they fix up their properties?
They are insane if they think that there is not enough "affordable housing". There is Section 8 out the arse in that neighborhood, and if free is not affordable, nothing is.
The concept for the entergy site seems interesting. I am hopeful for it, but I have some serious doubts. The NIMBY's are strong in that neighborhood, and they seem staunchily opposed to the kinds of gentrification and economic wealth that such a project would create in their neighborhood. They complain that their housing is in poor shape and that rent is unnaffordable. They complain that there is not enough investment in their community, there aren't enough businesses, too much blighted property. Then when someone wants to clean up blighted property and invest in businesses and housing in the area, they complain. They will never be satisfied because what they want is not and never will be profitable without significant subsidy, housing affordable to a single parent making minimum wage that is clean, safe, and well maintained with all of the modern amenities (washer/dryer, air conditioning, cable TV, ect)
They are insane if they think that there is not enough "affordable housing". There is Section 8 out the arse in that neighborhood, and if free is not affordable, nothing is.
The concept for the entergy site seems interesting. I am hopeful for it, but I have some serious doubts. The NIMBY's are strong in that neighborhood, and they seem staunchily opposed to the kinds of gentrification and economic wealth that such a project would create in their neighborhood. They complain that their housing is in poor shape and that rent is unnaffordable. They complain that there is not enough investment in their community, there aren't enough businesses, too much blighted property. Then when someone wants to clean up blighted property and invest in businesses and housing in the area, they complain. They will never be satisfied because what they want is not and never will be profitable without significant subsidy, housing affordable to a single parent making minimum wage that is clean, safe, and well maintained with all of the modern amenities (washer/dryer, air conditioning, cable TV, ect)
Posted on 3/3/15 at 12:06 pm to kingbob
Spot on
The downtown development district just expanded their borders too. Home owners in the area are eligible to receive a $500 residental facade grant in hope for property owners to restore the exterior of their homes
The downtown development district just expanded their borders too. Home owners in the area are eligible to receive a $500 residental facade grant in hope for property owners to restore the exterior of their homes
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 3/3/15 at 12:14 pm to Dorothy
quote:
According to The Advocate article, it was, but that part was absent from the plans presented. So maybe they scrapped that idea?
That plan hasn't been scrapped. The idea was that they didn't want to build a train station for a train that may never happen. They will have the parking available for the train station at that site due to the power lines preventing them from using any of that area for additional buildings. If the rail line comes through, the train station will be added. The developer guy said he thought the north side of the tracks would be a better location for the station.
Don't forget, there's vacant property on the opposite side of the tracks as well.
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 3/3/15 at 12:19 pm to kingbob
there's nothing anyone can add to this. well said.Posted on 3/3/15 at 1:35 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Why do these council members get upset when planners don't set their developments up to become slums filled with crime within 5 years of completion?
These people would like to perpetuate the shitholes in which their "constituency" lives and it's absolutely mind blowing.
It's very simple, it's what their constituents demonstrate that they want.
People in the poor communities of Baton Rouge may say that they want investment, nice properties, well maintained homes, affordability, ect, but all of that comes at a price. They say they hate crime, but they won't act as witnesses after a crime. They say they hate the blight in their neighborhoods, but they won't maintain their own properties. They say they want "affordable housing", but what they want is for someone else to pay their rent. They don't see that that version of "affordable housing" is what causes so many of their woes. The government pays no matter what, so the Section 8 slumlords have no incentive to maintain their property nor do they care when their tenets trash it. As long as its occupied, they get a check. Their tenets don't care if its nice or else they would maintain it. If someone DGAF about their own property, they're sure as heck not going to respect anyone else's. If they meet the income requirements of living in Section 8 housing, in order to support their livelihood, there is a high probability of black market income being utilized, which brings the crime and the violence.
The short answer: they do it because that's what their constituents real want to vote for, something for nothing.
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 3/3/15 at 1:42 pm to kingbob
quote:
The short answer: they do it because that's what their constituents real want to vote for, something for nothing.
Yeah, usually when I hear the council members from these areas say they want to "invest in their community", I usually assume they are looking to pay off one of their friends with govt money.
This is all a prime example of what happens when takers outnumber providers.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News