I’d be upset, too. It shouldn’t be a hotel, it should be a park. A hotel in this pretty neighborhood would be awful. Especially since it’s probably going to be Millennial Beige
What about a compromise: A trailer park. Private equity still gets to lease out the land to tenants, who own their own trailer and rent them out to Air BNB guests. It’s win-win-win.
A hotel would destroy the view from those units along the left, as well as the church. They can see for quite a ways now, after the hotel, they’ll be staring at a hotel. Why does this hotel get to bring down the living quality of those around it, with no compensation? Will rents in those units decrease because they are going be much less desirable when they are right up against a hotel with transient guests every day?
There’s totally compensation. They give the local arts place a bunch of money and host local art. (Which they can pay to get out of.) And they also have to let people use the roof for a whole 20 hours a week! (Which they can pay to get out of.)
If you don’t want to see other people or buildings, move to a cabin in the woods. Why should the people living in those units get to reap the profits of housing scarcity? Why should the people living in those units get to reap the benefits of living in a developed place developed with taxpayer money while disallowing others to do their same?
I’d be upset, too. It shouldn’t be a hotel, it should be a park. A hotel in this pretty neighborhood would be awful. Especially since it’s probably going to be Millennial Beige
Yeah but a hotel is still better than a parking lot. It’s literally the worst land use possible.
Can’t do handbrake turns in the snow on a hotel
Not with that attitude.
I like your energy
What about a compromise: A trailer park. Private equity still gets to lease out the land to tenants, who own their own trailer and rent them out to Air BNB guests. It’s win-win-win.
I’d make a Trailer Park Boys joke but I’m having a hard time enjoying it anymore
Got you dawg
“They could pay them $20 to fuck off”
A hotel would destroy the view from those units along the left, as well as the church. They can see for quite a ways now, after the hotel, they’ll be staring at a hotel. Why does this hotel get to bring down the living quality of those around it, with no compensation? Will rents in those units decrease because they are going be much less desirable when they are right up against a hotel with transient guests every day?
There’s totally compensation. They give the local arts place a bunch of money and host local art. (Which they can pay to get out of.) And they also have to let people use the roof for a whole 20 hours a week! (Which they can pay to get out of.)
If you don’t want to see other people or buildings, move to a cabin in the woods. Why should the people living in those units get to reap the profits of housing scarcity? Why should the people living in those units get to reap the benefits of living in a developed place developed with taxpayer money while disallowing others to do their same?
Hey I’ve parked there