A friend of the blog emails:

The supposedly pro-renter, pro-density council member, Mitra Jalali, has voted against the development on Lexington. It’s a development that would replace a vacant lot rather than tearing down houses that single families could buy. It also was a development that was not asking for any subsidies.h
Apparently, the city council thinks they can make Alatus (the developer) do it better or find someone who can do it better. Do what better is unclear. Of course, with Jalali’s push to enforce rent control, get rid of background checks, and reduce landlords ability to evict problem tenants, who will build anything here?
Well, there probably is some developer who funded Jalali’s campaign who “can do better.” But, we’ll see how much that type of donation costs us taxpayers when Alatus sues the city for this questionable decision. 



When you’re dealing with a movement whose unstated motto is “our ends justify our means”, that has single-party absolute power over all the knobs and levers of government, ignorance, the answer is “irrelevant”.

8 thoughts on “Better

  1. A lot that has been vacant for 10 years and they try to compare it to the destruction of the Rondo neighborhood? These city council members are off their rockers.

    Its nice to have upscale residents live in the neighborhood. They usually spend money at the local stores and restaurants which provides jobs to the local neighborhood. You can’t have everybody living on rent credit and expect the area to improve.

  2. You’d have to be an idiot to invest in St. Paul with this Council and attitude in place. Jalali and her ilk likely saved Alatus from themselves.

  3. From an article about the Planning Commission discussion of this site in February:

    “In a written statement, Midway advocate Isabel Chanslor said a large percentage of Frogtown, Summit-University and Midway households earn less than $35,000, and the residential areas within a half mile of Lexington Station are over two-thirds renters, and nearly half officially qualify as cost-burdened. “The proposed rents for this project triples the median rent,” she wrote, “putting the whole building out of reach for residents with (federal) Section 8 vouchers. Developers should follow a community median.”

    My thought as a former landlord: okay, but if I’m renting on Section 8 vouchers, I can’t afford to install any perks like elevators or hardwood floors or granite countertops or fancy landscaping, the items that middle-class people want. Instead, you’re getting cinderblock walls and concrete floors because Section 8 rents won’t service more construction debt than the bare bones.

    If all you want to do is warehouse low income people, you’re getting The Projects and the neighborhood will continue its slide into the abyss.

  4. Even if you do rent to section 8 tenants, the damage that the majority of them do to your property, doesn’t encourage compliance or acceptance from landlords. Add to those issues all of the rules and regulations that cities heap on them just to rent and you have your answer to the question; “Why isn’t there more affordable housing?”

  5. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 04.12.21 : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.