12/27/2023
Act 135 is yet another example of a law, that may have been designed to have a positive impact on communities, being exploited by development interest for profit at the expense of our communities and homes.
See also:
(1) the now axed and often exploited Fresh Food Bonus, intended to address food desserts in disinvested in communities, that granted additional height above zoning limits for including a large fresh fruit grocery store retail space. Ever walked by a completed new construction in a gentrifying area with a first floor that has been vacant for years? Developers often used this bonus in areas that were technically qualified by the number of thousands of feet from the nearest grocery store, but might have had ample grocery options in that radius. No market studies required, no guarantee of a future grocery store tenant required. And you can't take away an extra floor of height from a completed building.
(2) another additional height bonus granted for building affordable housing units in a large project - often side stepped by the option to pay into the affordable housing fund instead. Many pay into the fund rather than build the units, displacing people from their childhood neighborhoods as they gentrify. Add the fact that any landlords refuse (illegally) to accept section 8 housing vouchers in gentrifying areas, further displacing families into disinvested in communities and creating poverty "ghettos" until the next wave of profit seeking development displaces them again.
To Linsey Franklin, a community development nonprofit's efforts feel like class warfare — and a misapplication of state law.