Note:  What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website.  It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable.  (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)

What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It will contain typographical errors and other departures from the original.  The PDF displayed above is accurate.  The text below is not accurate.  It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.

Hello All,
Just a heads up: I have revised my opinion on the Gateway Plan after reading Michael Machi’s article regarding sea level
rise and impact to our wastewater treatment plant in the MRU recently. I now think that the Gateway project should be
shelved until we solve the issue of where to relocate the wastewater treatment plant, critical facilities and businesses
from South of Samoa and West of Old Arcata Road. Please see my most recent letter (from today) on this topic, and
would appreciate if you would include it. Thank you.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 11:18 PM Lisa Pelletier wrote:
Hello David,
Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions regarding the Gateway Plan (re: our convo over the phone). I
have some follow‐up questions:
1) You mentioned that you’ve singled out the Gateway Area, Craftsmen’s Mall area, and Valley West as “opportunity
zones”? What did you mean by that? Is this part of the Trump‐era/Republican-led 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
which promised “to drive billions of
dollars of investment into the country’s most disadvantaged
and most vulnerable neighborhoods”? Are you aware that wherever these so-called “opportunity zones” have
been implemented, people of color have been displaced en masse from communities where they’ve had a
large presence? Or are you using this terminology in another way that I’m not familiar with? If the latter is the
case, it seems a bit strange that you would choose that particular terminology.
2) As incentives to attract developers, do tax breaks on capital gains (or any tax breaks whatever) have a role
in this project?
3) According to a 2019 report by SAGE, an affordable housing advocacy group based in Los Angeles,
“Boosters promised Opportunity Zones would help bring capital to the neighborhoods that most need it, but in
reality allow wealthy investors to benefit from huge tax breaks while they speculate at the
expense of the most vulnerable communities.” Speculation is a real problem when it comes to driving up rents
and land values. Is there anything in the draft plan that addresses speculation, whether in “opportunity zones”
or just with owners keeping a vacant property off the market until the price is right to sell?
FYI: I listened to the PlanCo meeting last night, and I agree with Julie and Kimberley that “community
benefits” should not be linked to incidentals that should be standard expectations of developers. Rather, they
should be tied to traditional community benefits, such as affordable housing. And the percentages of the latter
are way too low, even at 20%. If we’re to give up some of the “character” of Arcata to allow for higher
stories/density, we need to get something back in spades that is beneficial to the community. For me, this
means a greater percentage of affordable housing (at least 25%) than you’re willing to consider at present.
2
Let’s get real. We can’t begin to achieve equity without a higher percentage of affordable housing. So I’d like
to hear that breakdown in percentages as soon as feasibly possible. In fact, it’s far more important to me than
deciding on the number of stories.
I appreciate all your hard work. And I’ve tried to keep my questions brief (down to 3) because I know how
busy you are. I appreciate your time.
Lisa