Laserfiche WebLink
AGGRESSIVELY ATTRACT ......................38� <br />AGGRESSIVELY DISCOURAGE ...................45$ <br />TAKE NO ACTION ............................12� <br />DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................6$ <br />But, almost forty percent favored "aggressive attraction" on the <br />part of the City. <br />"Aggressive attraction" was key for $37,500-$50,000 yearly <br />income households and Zone 4 residents. $50,000-$62,500 yearly <br />income households were more likely to recammend "aggressive <br />discouragement." <br />Overall, then, a hierarchy of development preferences were <br />faund. Citizens favored the "aggressive attraction" af single <br />family homes, senior citizen apartments/condominiums, and light <br />industry. Citizens also favored the "aggressive discouragement" <br />of apartment buildings, condominiums, mobile homes, retail <br />shapping centers, and commercial office buildings. On the <br />remaining development alternatives, the respondents were split. <br />Development� Traffic, and Taxes: <br />Residents were told: <br />Aa you may know, the construction of <br />apartment complexes, office buildinqs, <br />and shoppinq malls, has both positive <br />benefits and neqative consequences. <br />Each of these developments increase <br />��he tas base in the city and help hold <br />property taxes down. They also <br />increase tbe city population, at least <br />during operatinq hours, and add to <br />traffic conqestion on city streets. <br />They were then queried: <br />Whfch ot tbe followinq statements <br />comes closest to your opinion: <br />A. To keep my property tages as low <br />as possible, I support most new devel- <br />opment, even if it adds to traffic <br />conqestion. <br />131 <br />