|
Dameius posted:In Hasan Minaj's piece where he covered the Phoenix vote, he mentioned its 4 out for every 1 in spent on public transit. Has there been any kind of study or modeling on how much infrastructure you need to have built up before the amount of stimulus the investment makes starts to drop off? It's worth looking into how the (private) Japanese metro lines do it. They often own land around stations and capture some of the value they generate in order to fund transport. No reason that a city council couldn't do the same. (taxing carbon seems like it would have better incentives to me but is probably politically impossible).
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 11:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
value capture is great but it works better the further ahead of the curve you are. tokyo metro was able to drive the process and get super cheap land since much of it was actual burned out rubble. it's harder to capture the increase in value from improved transit if the land you're buying is already developed and valuable
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:value capture is great but it works better the further ahead of the curve you are. tokyo metro was able to drive the process and get super cheap land since much of it was actual burned out rubble. it's harder to capture the increase in value from improved transit if the land you're buying is already developed and valuable If that land is giant sfhs and parking lots and you are able to put market rate apartments there instead there's a lot to grab. Obviously that's not ideal - you also want to fund some social housing but there's definitely scope for it to play a role.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:If that land is giant sfhs and parking lots and you are able to put market rate apartments there instead there's a lot to grab. Obviously that's not ideal - you also want to fund some social housing but there's definitely scope for it to play a role. it doesn't really work within current transit budgets though, many of these agencies have to scramble for funds just to expand and maintain lines. i'm not sure where the money is going to come from for them to purchase outright or eminent domain large blocks of homes (already valuable due to transit access) and collect mere percentages off the top for redevelopment. it's trying to shoehorn transit agencies as public housing agencies which, in any scenario in which those resources are available - why not just have a public housing agency?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:it doesn't really work within current transit budgets though, many of these agencies have to scramble for funds just to expand and maintain lines. i'm not sure where the money is going to come from for them to purchase outright or eminent domain large blocks of homes (already valuable due to transit access) and collect mere percentages off the top for redevelopment. it's trying to shoehorn transit agencies as public housing agencies which, in any scenario in which those resources are available - why not just have a public housing agency? Sure, you could do it via coordination with the public housing agency. It doesn't have to work exactly the same as it does elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
then it's not value capture though... that's just redevelopment
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
We're talking about putting up commercial space in the area around a transit stop (think like a strip mall centered around a train station) to get sales from people getting on or leaving a train at that station. The commercial space would have things like cafes, grocery stores, restaurants, clothing stores. See this example in Japan. https://maps.app.goo.gl/ww3kfoXGc5DpXyv58
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:We're talking about putting up commercial space in the area around a transit stop (think like a strip mall centered around a train station) to get sales from people getting on or leaving a train at that station. The commercial space would have things like cafes, grocery stores, restaurants, clothing stores. i know what value capture is. what makes it value capture versus just redevelopment is obtaining land, improving transit access to the land, redeveloping it, and selling the land/renting it for a profit to the benefit of the transit agency to boost capital acquisition or provide long term operational funding. the critical part here is getting cheap land, which is certainly not going to be any sort of land developed into single family housing in any area within the possible reach of a fixed transit stop value capture works because the transit agency can leverage its role as a transportation provider to boost land value. it doesn't work when the agency moves away from its core mission of providing transportation services to instead play land developer in an already developed area, gaining marginal at best returns. you're more likely to see transit agencies selling off underutilized parking lots around transit stations to developers rather than seeing them become entrants into an already crowded development market and on top of that, if your goal is to construct more affordable housing rather than convert land to money for the benefit of the transportation system - why make a transit agency act as a public housing agency?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
Any thoughts on Bernie's Housing for All plan, dead thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
obviously there's not enough detail in this general proposal but otherwise it hits all the important notes and has an accurate grasp on the scale of funding necessary i'm not sure that withholding federal funds is enough of a stick to encourage local zoning reform, there's a lot of fragmented municipalities that don't take much in grants or would just do without them to run local pols on "big government bad" platforms and of course much of this isn't achievable within the timeframe democrats would have before the next republican administration comes in and strikes it all down
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:obviously there's not enough detail in this general proposal but otherwise it hits all the important notes and has an accurate grasp on the scale of funding necessary Many conservative states would be more then happy to deny their urban cities federal funding for housing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
karthun posted:Many conservative states would be more then happy to deny their urban cities federal funding for housing. cities can and do apply directly for federal funding. this is the point of withholding funds from localities to enforce local zoning changes
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
has MoCo MD gone in for much discussion here? They've written a fair amount of the book on growth management.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Any thoughts on Bernie's Housing for All plan, dead thread? Mostly looks Very Good, I like that he starts with expanding the affordable and social housing stocks, something which is desperately needed. A little later he has some very Bernie stuff about investigating large rental operations which is fine, although ime more institutionalisation of the rental market would be a good thing. It's a lot more fun renting from a professional organization than John the Dentist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 07:14
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:cities can and do apply directly for federal funding. this is the point of withholding funds from localities to enforce local zoning changes And there are conservative states that will pass laws preventing the cities from enacting local zoning changes fully knowing that the cities will lose funding and people of color will be harmed. There is nothing a President Sanders could do to stop it and the conservatives would be more then happy to blame President Sanders for poor people being kicked out of their homes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
karthun posted:And there are conservative states that will pass laws preventing the cities from enacting local zoning changes this is a huge unsupported assertion. states generally respect home rule and the local delegation of police power, though there's been a trend to override local zoning to prevent exclusionary practices on the basis that this is necessary to diminish the negative externalities that exclusionary local zoning has on the region. there is no similar precedent to enforce exclusionary zoning on the basis of political concerns, or to prevent localities from seeking state funding. it would also be a complete legal minefield to do so we all know the conservative party likes to poo poo on POC, can you explain this dead horse level take in the context of federal approaches to encourage local zoning reform?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:this is a huge unsupported assertion. states generally respect home rule and the local delegation of police power, though there's been a trend to override local zoning to prevent exclusionary practices on the basis that this is necessary to diminish the negative externalities that exclusionary local zoning has on the region. there is no similar precedent to enforce exclusionary zoning on the basis of political concerns, or to prevent localities from seeking state funding. it would also be a complete legal minefield to do so Uh, have you seen the bullshit Texas has been doing? The way the state of Georgia prevents funding for MARTA? The states all over the place who block municipal ISPs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Uh, have you seen the bullshit Texas has been doing? like what? can you be more specific? Solkanar512 posted:The way the state of Georgia prevents funding for MARTA? a state refusing to fund a transit agency is real lovely but it's got nothing to do with overriding local zoning Solkanar512 posted:The states all over the place who block municipal ISPs? again, preventing local utility formation has nothing to do with local zoning ordinance
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:this is a huge unsupported assertion. states generally respect home rule and the local delegation of police power, though there's been a trend to override local zoning to prevent exclusionary practices on the basis that this is necessary to diminish the negative externalities that exclusionary local zoning has on the region. there is no similar precedent to enforce exclusionary zoning on the basis of political concerns, or to prevent localities from seeking state funding. it would also be a complete legal minefield to do so Take this decorum bullshit out of here. Michigan riped up home rule and hosed over poor people of color and you think that this time under president Sanders they will respect it. gently caress that. Any time the federal government wants to use the carot and stick approach it needy to be structured carefully to prevent convervaties from abusing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
karthun posted:Take this decorum bullshit out of here. Michigan riped up home rule and hosed over poor people of color and you think that this time under president Sanders they will respect it. gently caress that. decorum is not a magic word you can use to dismiss criticism that your argument is baseless, sorry surely there are better threads in which you can hunt and defeat liberals, or seek agreement that republicans are, in fact, bad e: i don't want you to think that i'm disputing that conservative politicians are bastards. i just don't see how they're going to roll back zoning regulations on the state level and insert themselves into the grant/subsidy relationship between federal and local governments without igniting a legal shitstorm Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Sep 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:like what? can you be more specific? The state of Texas banned inclusionary zoning. So did Tennessee and Arizona. I guess you can argue that the cities can still have voluntary systems, but a voluntary zoning will do no good when the federal stick comes down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
karthun posted:The state of Texas banned inclusionary zoning. not really - texas banned mandatory inclusionary housing ordinances on homeowner units under most (not all, there are exceptions) circumstances. it doesn't impact rental units, and municipalities can still enact variance programs like permit streamlining arizona and tennessee have laws that are fully restrictive, i'll agree with you there. but if you want to make it a red state/blue state thing, oregon only lifted its ban on inclusionary zoning in 2016 (though this was likely enacted in conjunction with strong state support of regional planning and the famous mandatory urban growth boundary) and wisconsin passed a ban on inclusionary zoning last year. it's really more about developer lobbies than partisan politics at this level, especially given that many red states have not moved to restrict or clarify what is permissible within zoning variances under local control local governments only have a limited toolkit to encourage developers to build affordable housing, and developers have deeper pockets and more time to lobby than localities do. i agree this tug of war over what precisely is permissible via zoning ordinance should be weighted heavily towards local government, but often is not. i don't see this though as attempts to roll back local control, if some states want to block zoning reform by ordinance they would have a much more difficult time blocking zoning reform via a direct change to underlying zoning categories (which is a tougher political fight between localities and residents, hence why overlays and ordinances are more attractive in the short term). it just prevents local governments from using the cheaper, quicker option, when the more necessary work of form-based codes or something like that could be implemented to channel developer efforts for public good
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Great thread. Long time lurker, first time poster. This thread has really good ideas for city-, state-, and nation-wide solutions to housing issues. I've learned a lot from reading here. Would I be permitted to narrow the focus to the individual? I'm about to move to a historic neighborhood that has gentrified in the last decade. I'd like to describe my situation, solicit advice on how I can be a good neighbor, and maybe help other people in my situation. Is that the right thread for this? Or do we want to focus on higher-level issues?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Bagheera posted:Great thread. Long time lurker, first time poster. I only lurk but that sounds really interesting to me. Did you purchase a home or are you renting?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 02:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:has MoCo MD gone in for much discussion here? They've written a fair amount of the book on growth management. Oh hello fellow Moco goon! I’m glad I discovered this thread as I’ve gotten pretty involved in local planning issues over the last year. Went to several planning forums, joined a local YIMBY group, transit group, and Sierra Club. Did you go to the Vienna housing forum hosted by Hans Reimer? Some of the local DSA people were there, including Vaughn Stewart. A crazy lady got up, took the mic, and spent several minutes yelling at all of us and accused us of wanting to turn Moco into Vienna (which I would very much welcome)
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:A crazy lady got up, took the mic, and spent several ahh, public comments
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 05:41
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:Oh hello fellow Moco goon! I’m glad I discovered this thread as I’ve gotten pretty involved in local planning issues over the last year. Went to several planning forums, joined a local YIMBY group, transit group, and Sierra Club. There are several goons in the region involved in these areas. We should form a book club- I just moved to rockville, and I have some (outdated) inside skinny on some things here.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
I decided to poke in the CA thread and  Why do leftist/goons oppose ADUs and defend rich single family home owners, but are more than happy to never work with a developer despite the later being needed to, you know, build the housing. I especially don’t understand the ADU opposition. It gives renters a chance to find affordable housing in areas (single family neighborhoods with good services/schools) previously closed off to them. It breaks my mind when I see NIMBYS and leftist groups team up  Rich single family home owners are the real class enemy people!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:I especially don’t understand the ADU opposition. It gives renters a chance to find affordable housing in areas (single family neighborhoods with good services/schools) previously closed off to them. It breaks my mind when I see NIMBYS and leftist groups team up with complex real world problems like housing affordability, some folks like to approach the problem from the practical perspective of "what steps can we implement in the real world using the tools available to us" and others like to approach from the theoretical perspective of "what would an ideal society look like without constraints or political obstacles" and then the people advocating these different perspectives repeat slogans and call each other class traitors some people ironically advocate corbusian housing blocks and then some people unironically advocate it and then some people point out why this is a terrible idea that wouldn't work in the united states and it just becomes a mess if nobody wants to play the same lets-pretend game at the same time p.s. any government which could build enormous housing blocks in los angeles would also have the power and incentive to just forcibly move hundreds of thousands of people away from los angeles, a city in a desert with a water supply highly vulnerable to climate change Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Sep 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
A lot depends on context, scaling and design with ADUs (like a lot of things). You gotta regulate them carefully to keep them from turning into, e.g., horrible unregulated airbnb slum strata, or being leveraged to justify worse sprawl development layouts versus other options. Imo ADUs are easier to justify as a densification step (with extremely detailed, significant accompanying regs) for specific previously developed residential areas. A general rule of thumb is if the developers are coming to your jurisdiction proposing something (including something that seems goodish like ADUs) it's because they think they have a way to screw you over with them. Since real estate moneymen are the original big bad supervillain moral evil in the US who are very, very good at undermining or perverting land use regulation, it also means you have to worry about the genuine intentions of "organic grassroots movements" promoting policy changes that seem good on their face. None of this should be read as opposing the Moco ADU policy; to the degree that I've researched it, it seems excellent. Solaris 2.0 posted:A crazy lady got up, took the mic, and spent several minutes yelling at all of us and accused us of wanting to turn Moco into Vienna (which I would very much welcome) Vienna....Maryland? I'd think that was what the NIMBYs would dream of, just look at those racial demographics! Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Sep 29, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 07:12
|
|
Bagheera posted:Great thread. Long time lurker, first time poster. This is as good a thread as any.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Since real estate moneymen are the original big bad supervillain moral evil in the US who are very, very good at undermining or perverting land use regulation, it also means you have to worry about the genuine intentions of "organic grassroots movements" promoting policy changes that seem good on their face. This was one of the major concerns among people I know in the Bay Area re: ADUs. Landlords and property management companies were hoping to score a victory that would allow them to evict tenants without just cause, and hinged their willingness to build ADUs on whether or not they'd be given this freedom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:I decided to poke in the CA thread and Nice job running to a different thread even though this was explained very clearly in the other thread. You are an idiot. The opposition to ADUs do not support "rich, single family home owners". They are not defending these people. They see ADUs as predatory rent seeking at worst, and pointless at best. No NIMBYs and leftist are teaming up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
ADUs are definitely not pointless though, americans just have some sort of resistance to them since it pierces the purity of exclusionary single use zoning
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
I think the extent to which leftists oppose new housing is exaggerated a bit, ADUs had plenty of support from the DSA (although not necessarily their candidates, who tend to be more concerned about homeowners than the rank and file), and lots of the Twitter outrage tends to be about specific DSA chapters (notably East Bay DSA) who seem to occasionally get confused but have walked back bad decisions. e: e.g. this measure was initially opposed but the leadership did some rules lawyering and overruled the endorsement committee after listening to other perspectives. That's good! You just don't hear about it as much as the original outrage about NIMBY DSA members opposing affordable housing. https://twitter.com/DemSocialists/status/1060641628136849410?s=19 distortion park fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Sep 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:ADUs are definitely not pointless though, americans just have some sort of resistance to them since it pierces the purity of exclusionary single use zoning a city is not a tree, i weep as i transform into a bedroom community
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:ADUs are definitely not pointless though, americans just have some sort of resistance to them since it pierces the purity of exclusionary single use zoning I'm having a hard time finding any research that shows ADUs actually help traditionally disenfranchised people. There are a few papers that theorize they can work (this is a good one). That paper does mention that backyard cottage units are too small for families and are inhabited at half the rate of other housing by families. It also says it gives people access to schools, which seems contradictory. It also mentions that while area numbers and lax space requirements allow ADUs to be built, how many and who lives in them is not clear. Other works show that infill raises home prices. Until I see some hard evidence that anyone but the home-owner benefits, I'm going to continue to assume this is a rent grab. I'm happy to proven wrong in the coming years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:I'm having a hard time finding any research that shows ADUs actually help traditionally disenfranchised people. you have an incorrect perspective on the role of ADUs, i think think of them as studio apartments. think of the kind of people who live in studio apartments - single people, older single people, younger single people - students, widows, widowers, weird asses with ten thousand dollar warham collections. think of the kind of housing they would inhabit in the current american housing provision standard. think of who else would like to inhabit that housing as well ADUs are not a solution to affordable housing by themselves. they are part of a broad contribution to mitigating the problems created by free market provision of that kind of housing, especially in a market as hosed up as the california housing market if you focus on traditionally disenfranchised people, then you have a problem with the deeper root issues of single family zoning in the first place than whether or not single family zoned lots are allowed to permit a lodger or two. the focus of your solution is too small, and you should be rightfully attentive to broader, more radical zoning reform - but whether or not ADUs are permissible is beneath your perspective in the context of housing families disadvantaged by capitalist land use controls pointsofdata posted:I think the extent to which leftists oppose new housing is exaggerated a bit in my extremely personal, controversial, and not to be extrapolated beyond the musings of a single person opinion - i think that leftists discovered housing policy and urban planning through yimby memes for new urbanist teens sometime around 2014 and we have not yet collectively progressed beyond the nuance level of sloganeering. but again, that's just me, and my very individual opinion Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Sep 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:you have an incorrect perspective on the role of ADUs, i think I assume they are a way for people in Mountain View to make money off Googlers. Other people seem to think they are a way to open up white people schools to brown kids. Anyway, we seem to agree on what they physically are and what the problems are, so we might just be going in circles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:I assume they are a way for people in Mountain View to make money off Googlers. Other people seem to think they are a way to open up white people schools to brown kids. Anyway, we seem to agree on what they physically are and what the problems are, so we might just be going in circles. possibly. san francisco region is a real deeply hosed up market. like, people with solid middle class jobs living in trailers hosed up. ADUs are traditionally part of the housing ecosystem in a market economy but dumbass poo poo might happen when nobody short of a c-suite deece six figgies job can afford a 2/1. it is not too useful point at what works in san franciso housing, like trying to diagnose cancer in a gunshot patient
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 02:13
|
|