Laserfiche WebLink
20. <br /> <br />21. <br /> <br />recommends eliminating the reference to the Community Index. <br />(See General Concern 1.). <br /> <br />Local Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Review Guidel{nes. <br />(pages q0-45) The AMM is concerned about combining Central <br />Cities, MUSA Communities and Freestanding Cities into one set <br />of guidelines. There is so much difference in concerns and <br />existing conditions that we question if one set of generic <br />criteria can deal with all issues adequately. <br /> <br />Local Housing Bond Plan Review Guidelines. (pages q6-qg). The AMM <br />reiterates its recommendation that Housing Revenue Bond <br />projects and proposals originating with the MHFA be submitted <br />for review to the Metropolitan Council and local communities <br />to assure consistency with regional and local plans. <br /> <br />Community Index. (pages 54-65) General Concern 1 contains the <br />AMM's major concern and recommendation with respect to the <br />Community Index. There are also some technical type concerns <br />with respect to the index. A partial listing includes: <br /> <br />-Communities split by the MUSA line may be <br />high value of houses (large lot estates) <br />outside the MUSA. <br /> <br />penalized because of <br />already in existence <br /> <br />-The same house might have different values in different areas <br />due to intangible factors. <br /> <br />-Market Place influence on housing style types and costs. <br /> <br />-10- <br /> <br /> <br />