My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-26-1984 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1984
>
11-26-1984 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2025 12:32:13 PM
Creation date
11/3/2025 11:24:11 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
376
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
construction. <br />The AMM supports the basic concept of life cycle housing and <br />alternative housing types but believes some clarification should <br />be made. (see General Concerns 2 and 3). The AMM recommends <br />revising policy 10 on page 20 to reflect more of a regional <br />approach in the planning for life -cycle housing needs. <br />Handicapped - Accessible }sousing. (page 21). The AMM has a <br />problem with policy 12. The policy states that funds should be <br />made available but does not state where this funding should come <br />from. The AMM believes it is the responsibility of the federal <br />and state levels of government to provide these funds because of <br />their broader tax bases. <br />The AMM has concerns with respect to policy 16 on page 25 which <br />introduces the "Community Index Concept." The committee believes <br />the Community Index might be a useful tool to serve as a guide <br />for local planning effort but believes there are too many <br />variables and unanswere questions for the Council tc use th.io <br />index in a "policy 34" type review situation. (see General <br />Concern 1) <br />Recommendation: If the Council proceeds with the Community Index <br />Concept, it should be used as an advisory and experimental basis <br />initially. <br />6. Policy 17 on page 25. The AMM recommends tightening the wording <br />to refl,,..t the federal definition of low income persons. <br />Policy 18 on page 26. The AMM does not object to this policy but <br />believes it mixes two different concepts into a single policy and <br />thereby poss>»ly creating confusion. (concentration of <br />subsidized housing and the fact that design and construction for <br />subsidized housing should no`. be inferior to market rate <br />housing). <br />3. Uolicy 21 on page 28. The AMM concurs with this policy. <br />9. Policy 22. The AMM has a concern with the B. portion of this <br />policy (housing strategy for older developed suburbs) which <br />really does not define a strategy as much as it discusses tools. <br />This statement should be amplified to explain how the various <br />subsidy tools can be used to meet the needs of the lowest income <br />groups. <br />1'�• Page 34, background material relative to deteriorated <br />neighborhoods. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs to <br />be amplified to explain that "low quality service" does not refer <br />just to the services provided by the city. The AMM does not <br />agree with the implication that z city provides its services <br />WE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.