Housing plan beneficial to more

The Clovis city commissioners found a developer willing to renovate the Hotel Clovis and the surrounding neighborhood. This would require the city to loan the developer up to $1.4 million. Among other things, the renovation would provide affordable housing for workers while dramatically improving the physical appearance of that portion of Clovis. The developer would in turn earn tax credits that he plans to sell to investors.

A minority group in Clovis opposes this plan. They have forced the city to spend $15,000 (give or take a couple of thousand) because they oppose the decision made by the elected city commissioners. This group would prefer that the city not loan the developer up to $1.4 million, which will put a stop to this renovation. In turn, the city will then be required to spend $2 million to demolish the Hotel Clovis. The developer will not get a tax break. There will be no affordable housing. The improvements to the surrounding neighborhood will not happen. Why would this group be in favor of increased government spending and higher taxes? Why would they oppose affordable housing? Why would they oppose a plan to improve the appearance of Clovis to the citizens of Clovis and to the visitors who come to Clovis?

There are services that effective governments need to provide to their citizens. Among other things, governments need to pave streets, buy weapons for the military, and provide safe and attractive living environments for their citizens. Some of these services cannot be provided without involving private contractors. The city commissioners did an outstanding job finding a contractor willing to refurbish the Hotel Clovis at minimum cost while providing maximum benefit to the citizens of Clovis. The city commissioners should be praised for their efforts.

Carl and Mona Lee Armstrong

Clovis

Ute Water Project more pressing issue

I’ve been following closely the local political controversy, the “affordable housing” project for the Hotel Clovis.

I’ve read all pros and cons in the newspaper articles. The letters to the editor by Rube Render and Darrel Nance were logical and got my attention.

I started thinking, did a little math, and I’m waiting for someone to convince me that taxpayers should spend $12.8 million on 59 units of housing. I’m not against low-income housing, but $216,950 per apartment doesn’t seem very “affordable” to me. I would think you could build this for about half that price. We’re not exactly starting from the ground up. If we’re going to spend taxpayer money, let’s get the Ute Water Project completed first.

Jack Bauder

Clovis