.MjE2Mw.MjE2Mw

~/ { SUBJECT: ( ADDENDJM DEVELOPMENT CO.MPETITION ON FEDERAL SURPLUS LAND-TO MEET CRITICAL NEEDS GAo R-22 - 'THOMASVILLE uREAN·· REDEVELOPMENT AREA Dear Sir:

This letter constitutes an Addendum to an Invitation to Buy and Develop land in the Thomasville Urban Redevelopment Area, Project Georgia R-22, dated Jur.e 10, 1968. The Offering is an invitation to bid on a development competition e~compassing approximately 96 acres of Federal Surplus L~hd lying in two parcels designated BB-·l and CC-1. The Offering states that proposals will be ope!"1ed September 5, 1968. The opening date is hereby changed to OCTOBER 24, 1968 at 10:00 A. M. at the offices of the Atlanta Housing Authorityi 824 Hurt Building, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303. ! / f • ( . The Housing Act of 1968 contains provisions which propospective Redevelopers may wish to use in this competition. It is anticipated· that most of the pertine r1t detail s concerning this Act, and particularly Sections 235 and 236, will be knm·m within the next few weeks. It is anticipated also that the supplemental Appropriations Act, funding tha new Sections, will be passed on or before October 1. We are a~nouncing the new bid opening date ·of October 24, 1968, to provide an opportunity for Re d e velopers to _submit proposals based on the possibilities provided in the new Housing Act. ... . . .; .. ' '. .~... r • • , ~• ..:. -~ .,!' • ' , ., ... ~:' . • ., ·. : _ i. ., During the past several weeks a number of prospective Redevel-opers have asked questions, the answers to which we believe should have general circulation. These an s we rs are to be con.-.. _,,., _ sidered Addenda to the Offering, and are as follows: .. ~ ·•' . ,-: .: _t _: ' .,_···. );~ 1 r

~ ,,:~·o1:,,. ,,.~ :-q -.~. :·.:.~·-_ .. :)l,·, -: :.. .: _. ~

,,

·

1)~/'; "·

. .:·/. ,r.:·~ ,?~;~·.:·:·r ,:~.· .· ,. . • ;_ . ,'_';J,. .' .,

~ '" .. • ._ \ I .. .., , · L.'_:, ·. . ,. -. -~ ' . . ' ~ -~-' . .:

,-.

J 4 ·:·, ~. . ::•....... .• . y ' -~ .. . . . ... . / . ..._. -:~\ ,,/ .. · �2• . ! . , I , , .. (1) The price for the lai1d offered has b8en question8d. ,•.' ..:.~~: ·' In clarification. we point out that it is our desire that the Redeveloper should have the most complete freedom possible in ~is approach to land use. Some commercial land will ;)c :1.ccessary to. serve the convenience needs of the immediate neighborhood. We ·'-' ,.._ . /. / Part of this six [V · I ..._, /l _.-. have limited this to six acres.

J

. _acres may be utilized fo1- service stations located 1 'l / \,s• . ,_I l:\· / .(j .· .:,/ ;i __.; ,_,·- near the on and off ramps of the Lakewood Extension _1 ,·, J . .. Freeway, which use would increase the value of the 1 _. commercial land grcatl~,. The commercial usage should

\ / \ : ~

be subordinate to the shoppi~g center to be built at ./_-! the corner of Morcla n c1 A•.·e,rne and McDonough :Boulevard. I . -~\.1 ,-' t.\ 'J~.':;' ·· ,; . .·

jr: ~\:-.'·.

· :\ 0 _'., \ : \ .It is our bcl icf, s h a::ccl by FaA, that the land for · \ ~. \.:/ lowest income hoL1sin 9 shoLi.ld be included in housing . · ' ..dcveloprtlen·t costs a t -U., c lowest possible value in order to achieve th:? lowes·t possible rents or sales prices. For that reason, we have stipulated that this land woula be accepted by FSA at a ma x im~m value of $4-, 500 pc ;::- acre fo;:- s~c+.ion 221 cl (3), Section 235 and Section 236 developmen t s. The remaining residential land might be acceptable for mortgages under other pr.og r ar,1 s, incJ.---10 inq convent ional financing, at a som0~1at higher valu~. ) ( ...... . ' <'-.. I t ,r • ., • ! \ •' , ·, . I , ,·v . ., \ When t!-1~ fore c_:: oing corisid c! ,-ations are lump e d together, we arrived at an a v e r a q e p r ic e per acre of $7,650 . We believe that the Redcv~lope r and his advisers should _be able to alloca t e val u es to individual portions for each portion . We reali7 0. U·,.a t. this (av erage price of $7,650) approach t o U·,c sale o f land will me an that the Red e v e lop e r will ~eccl mor e than usual capital since he will buy r e sick·ntial J.;:i;~. c~. prior to the purchase and developme nt of th e cor.i~v::: ;.:cial land _ It is our hope that this disadvan ta,;e will be o u t weighed b y the many advant age s g a ined b y hr1.vi n9 comp l ete fre e dom to d e v e lop l and uses fo ~ t h n total arna . . ,• / / 'O 'i~/ . -,. (2) .. ' 0 . 7/)y6 [ ~ I\ _ / . <}·

.1

~).< n -u I /11\ , 1-1'1· '/ ··· J . .. I Vi . ~ -~\ . . I/\_ //•"'/ ' . t . • ' \ ' . . . . . • . ' . , I· \ .' ) ! ,, .. . ' ' ' I . ,. _:. • ' ~- ' \.

Y\J / ./ I , 1 I .! _·., ·((rv ! The Offe r i,1g r cqu i r~:-s d 8 vc l o p me nt o f 3 00 d welli ng u n i t s ava i labl e t o t-.l-: P. l cwcs t i:.c o ,,,c fani i l i c s . The wo rding "l o we st incorni::' f nr,1 i 1 i0s " is c1el i b cra t e, a n d i s in contrast t,) t:·!(' wo rd s J. 0w--r1.:,i1!: pt·, blic holi s ing" . It is our belief that the use of Secti o n 221 d(3 ) in its various a~plications, s~ction 235 and/or Section 236, togAther with use oft~~ Rc ~ t Supplement Program, can provide for many of t.h.ese fa-::-,,ilies. It may be that '

.'

. . \ . -~ ··.,..-. �3.' \ Some quantity of low-rent public housing may be found necessary. Eac}~ prospective Redeveloper should analyze this phase of the development in order propc~ly to arrive at a solution. It is our hope that no low-rent public hqµsing will be necessary to meet this goal oi the development. However, if public housing, either Turn-key or preferably Leased, is co~sidered necessary, it s})ould not exceed 50% of the -300 dwellings. Our analysis of the low-rent public housing situ-} at ion in Atlar.ta, as it concerns high-rise for ? elderly, leads 1.J.s t:o the conclusion t~1at this _ type of public housing would not be acceptable in this development.. We do not, however, rule out high-rise for one and two person families financed through other programs. I I iI I I ? J (3) After the bid openingJ all proposals will be delivered to a Jury composed of nationally recognized authorities in the field of housing. The Jury is being supplied with the same information as that supplied to prospective Redevelopers. This Jury will review all proposals and will select the successful proposal to recommend to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners for the award. (4) It should be apparent from the foregoing that the criteria for judging the proposals will be based solely on the written information which has been supplied both to the prospective Redevelopers and to the Jury. The types of questions, therefore, that our staff is prepare d to answer relate to the methods of submitting proposals rather than to the contents of the• propo_sals. r·· Sincerely yours, MBS:hcn . .. $H EET Z A N D B~ ,\D rrE LO '" . .' ....._-., I Al1ctlll <C TS / lt-; C . / AIA A , AUG 2 9 1968 ~ _,._, ... ..' _.;~' . ' . . ~....

. .

·~ ,·· ·~- \.;'~· ' . ~;·:' ... .. ta.TrANT "· ·c ;w ~GI.AI '.,.\ ~ .: ,; . ' " \ J ~ ,. ' ~

I

I ·,•, ·.· �