Developer vetting (F.3)

Supported vetting developer applicants, urging annual updates and quicker implementation to prevent failed developments.

Supported rigorous developer vetting, citing failed projects and blight from unqualified developers.

Supported the questionnaire as a simple transparency tool that provides valuable information without new regulations.

Called developer vetting essential due diligence for accountability and public trust.

Supported the proposal as common-sense transparency but urged the city to hold developers accountable for delivery.

Supported requiring developer background information, citing past failed projects and the need for deliverable projects.

Said understanding a developer's experience and track record is essential for informed decisions.

Supported stricter developer vetting and urged prioritizing proven track records before approving more development.