|
I just listened to Malcolm Gladwells podcast episode about golf club tax breaks in LA and holy gently caress appropriate them now.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
Lol it's actually in the California constitution, not the LA county rules, and it's literally just for golf clubs. Not sports or outdoors activities or something, just golf. E: here it is, beautiful: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS§ionNum=SEC.%2010.&article=XIII quote:Real property in a parcel of 10 or more acres which, on the lien date and for 2 or more years immediately preceding, has been used exclusively for nonprofit golf course purposes shall be assessed for taxation on the basis of such use, plus any value attributable to mines, quarries, hydrocarbon substances, or other minerals in the property or the right to extract hydrocarbons or other minerals from the property. distortion park fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Dec 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
People who make laws tend to like golf. Similar to how cycling gets higher profile treatment in planning than pedestrianism (policy development, not necessarily decision making and implementation) because a whole bunch of civil servants are white bike dads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 08:02
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:People who make laws tend to like golf. Similar to how cycling gets higher profile treatment in planning than pedestrianism (policy development, not necessarily decision making and implementation) because a whole bunch of civil servants are white bike dads. Maybe biking gets more attention precisely because building decent infrastructure for it is controversial, but acting like that means it's treated better even in "policy development", or that it gets special treatment the way golf does here, makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
I agree in principle, although it isn't true that sidewalks are everywhere in certain countries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 11:22
|
|
|
Sure, and even in the US there are some cities/neighborhoods where there aren't sidewalks everywhere. Nevertheless, them being on every block by default is pretty normal, whereas a physically protected bike lane is treated as a special unicorn that has to be debated and fought for. You can argue whether or not it makes sense to call those projects "high profile" because of this, but it's a terrible comparison to make with something like golf that's getting special, beneficial treatment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 11:31
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Sure, and even in the US there are some cities/neighborhoods where there aren't sidewalks everywhere. Nevertheless, them being on every block by default is pretty normal, whereas a physically protected bike lane is treated as a special unicorn that has to be debated and fought for. You can argue whether or not it makes sense to call those projects "high profile" because of this, but it's a terrible comparison to make with something like golf that's getting special, beneficial treatment. 100% agree. The idea that transport quality or safety matter to people that aren't driving is entirely foreign to so many places, and any attempt to make things better is seen as radical. If anyone has some good #bancars AV material I'll buy a couple.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
What are folks thoughts on transfer of development rights (TDR) bylaws?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:Lol it's actually in the California constitution, not the LA county rules, and it's literally just for golf clubs. Not sports or outdoors activities or something, just golf. Wait, am I reading this correctly and this law says "if you have a golf club in the middle of the most expensive dense neighborhood in LA, then we'll pretend 'golf club' is your highest and best use"? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
TDR is one of those band aid policies that pops up because local jurisdictions don't really have the authority or resources to effectively restrict sprawl. it is well intentioned but kind of a bad outcome for conservation simply because of the immobility of jurisdictional fragmentation and personal property rights which permit nearly unchecked sprawl in the first place. like i'm glad TDR exists because it's better than nothing on a pragmatic level, but on a theoretical level we could be doing so much more with direct creation of protected community greenspaceQuorum posted:Wait, am I reading this correctly and this law says "if you have a golf club in the middle of the most expensive dense neighborhood in LA, then we'll pretend 'golf club' is your highest and best use"? yeah, leisure activities get a lot of protections if it's an activity which wealthy politicians happen to enjoy
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Wait, am I reading this correctly and this law says "if you have a golf club in the middle of the most expensive dense neighborhood in LA, then we'll pretend 'golf club' is your highest and best use"? Yes. There's another tax scam where properties which were built or had a change in ownership after some date in the past (1978?) Get revalued every few years. Lots of private (non profit!) golf clubs are owned by their members, who slowly die off and get replaced by new ones. There was a court case a few years ago, and they decided that this doesn't count as a change in ownership even if only a tiny fraction of the pre cutoff owners remain. End result is that private golf clubs pay a tiny fraction of their fair taxes (Gladwells example is about 0.1%)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Ship of Theseus but in tax evasion form.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
that's not really a scam so much as prop 13 is a bad law
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
Speaking of redlining/wealth generation the Evanston illinois meeting on reparations for black people is tomorrow night and will be streamed online. So far the aldermen/women are saying that the plan is to use the 10mil on promoting black homeownership so I'm hopeful theres more details announced on how they plan to do this Should be streamed here, https://www.facebook.com/RobinSimmonsWard5 7 pm cst Wednesday
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:Yes. There's another tax scam where properties which were built or had a change in ownership after some date in the past (1978?) Get revalued every few years. Lots of private (non profit!) golf clubs are owned by their members, who slowly die off and get replaced by new ones. There was a court case a few years ago, and they decided that this doesn't count as a change in ownership even if only a tiny fraction of the pre cutoff owners remain. End result is that private golf clubs pay a tiny fraction of their fair taxes (Gladwells example is about 0.1%) This does seem to suggest one glaring loophole, and now I'd like to see a movie where a desperate civil engineer teams up with a bounty hunter with a passion for urbanism to hunt down the last original members of the city's golf club.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
"Things that are illegal to build in most American cities now, a thread": https://twitter.com/CascadianSolo/status/1204306278173958145
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
What if bunkhouses, but as permanent housing for everyone but the top 20%.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
Quorum posted:This does seem to suggest one glaring loophole, and now I'd like to see a movie where a desperate civil engineer teams up with a bounty hunter with a passion for urbanism to hunt down the last original members of the city's golf club. I would watch this, my understanding is that the requirement is for 50% ownership change in one event(year?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 08:02
|
|
|
A state rep in VA has introduced a bill to legalize ADUs statewide and people aren’t taking it well: https://twitter.com/lukerosiak/status/1210354563049500676?s=21
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:A state rep in VA has introduced a bill to legalize ADUs statewide and people aren’t taking it well: i scrolled some of this dude's twitter and he's definitely invested in his self-delusion as a rugged individualist who is absolutely not an exurban hobby farmer dependent on the urban service sector jobs he despises
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:A state rep in VA has introduced a bill to legalize ADUs statewide and people aren’t taking it well: Oh my! You mean people might have the option of spending 150K or more to build a small house in their backyard that will probably be occupied by the mother in law that otherwise might live in their spare bedroom? It's not an option many people will do. Take out all the people with no spare money, take out all the people too small of lots, people who could never rent out the place for enough money to pay for it, and people who don't like the idea of being landlords...I think his crappy exurb is pretty much safe. ADU'S are fine, but will never have much of an impact. They're just too big of a pain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
Ahaha it's so nice to see these assholes eating the Dillon Rule for once and not people trying to pass antidiscrimination ordinances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:A state rep in VA has introduced a bill to legalize ADUs statewide and people aren’t taking it well: Then don't build one? What a loving weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
Cicero posted:"Things that are illegal to build in most American cities now, a thread": https://twitter.com/CascadianSolo/status/1204306278173958145 This thread's nonsense, most of these aren't illegal, and a bunch of them aren't permitted in new development because they're not sufficiently dense for urban zoning. The idea that commercial ground floor and residential upper is "illegal" is just...nuts. That is one of the most popular new development models (for good and ill under different circumstances). And bunch of these are actively sprawl contributors or -- oh wait. quote:Policy outcomes don't care about your intentions. Neoliberal. YIMBY. Market Environmentalist #TeamPete #TeamDelaney Yeah that makes sense. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Dec 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
I will never get over the neoliberal pride element of “YIMBY.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
On the other hand, it is amusing to me the logical contortions that some people go through to avoid having to use market principles to explain why housing costs are so high in booming metropolitan areas. It is like they have an allergy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This thread's nonsense, most of these aren't illegal, and a bunch of them aren't permitted in new development because they're not sufficiently dense for urban zoning. The idea that commercial ground floor and residential upper is "illegal" is just...nuts. That is one of the most popular new development models (for good and ill under different circumstances). And bunch of these are actively sprawl contributors or --
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This thread's nonsense, most of these aren't illegal In saner countries like Germany or Japan, they don't have this kind of zoning anywhere in the entire country, IIRC. There's still different levels of density permitted, but the bottommost level still allows for stuff like townhomes and fourplexes and whatnot. Cicero fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Dec 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah they are, in most residential land (in the US). Even in many, perhaps most major cities, you're restricted to detached single family homes on big lots. Higher density dwellings are generally only then allowed on smaller areas of land within the city. residential land != "most cities". and good god they're still not "illegal", they're restricted to specific places for zoning. FISHMANPET posted:Have you ever actually read a zoning code? And which of these are contributors to sprawl? I am familiar with zoning codes, yes, well enough to know that there's more than one purpose or use to many of the features the account is describing, such as setbacks having purposes other than street shading. What he refers to as missing middle is also a problem when it's applied in places where higher density is more appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:residential land != "most cities".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:What does this mean? The tweet that was the basis for this convo begins with the categorical "Things that are illegal to build in most American cities now, a thread". The rejoinder from Cicero is about "most residential land", with a bunch of other qualifiers. "!=" is shorthand for "does not equal".
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The tweet that was the basis for this convo begins with the categorical "Things that are illegal to build in most American cities now, a thread". The rejoinder from Cicero is about "most residential land", with a bunch of other qualifiers. "!=" is shorthand for "does not equal". Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Dec 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
where a lot of specific housing forms may be generally forbidden in 50%+1 of jurisdictions in america this is not an especially useful argument to make when trying to make a broader point about exclusionary housing. housing forms without attached parking, for example, are often not specifically forbidden but rather just blocked on the grounds that they don't meet even permissive parking minimums, as well as no developer is going to commit to build housing without parking regardless of regulation so it's de facto forbidden on market grounds
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:residential land != "most cities". and good god they're still not "illegal", they're restricted to specific places for zoning. quote:I am familiar with zoning codes, yes, well enough to know that there's more than one purpose or use to many of the features the account is describing, such as setbacks having purposes other than street shading. What he refers to as missing middle is also a problem when it's applied in places where higher density is more appropriate. Single family home only zoning should not exist, it's terrible for the environment, terrible for the economy, and terrible for social inequality. But instead of it not existing, the US has it on the vast majority of residential land, even in many major cities! That's bad! Cicero fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Dec 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 12:56
|
|
|
You're defending a series of tweets that were factually wrong on several levels by reinterpreting them into something you want. Look at the account's affiliations. Is it really someone worth doing this over?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
Cicero posted:
I wouldn't go this far given how rural some places are in the United States but if you are "close" to a city you should absolutely be obligated to build more dense housing. Density can bring its own problems, what you want is a different stocks of housing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
It's not factually wrong, those forms are illegal in most cities except for little slivers of land. Stop defending America's lovely segregationist housing structure.Mooseontheloose posted:I wouldn't go this far given how rural some places are in the United States but if you are "close" to a city you should absolutely be obligated to build more dense housing. Density can bring its own problems, what you want is a different stocks of housing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Cicero posted:"Things that are illegal to build in most American cities now, a thread": https://twitter.com/CascadianSolo/status/1204306278173958145 We definitely have #5 in Minneapolis; I guess we are an outlier (?).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
IIRC Minneapolis recently passed very good missing middle legislation, so yeah it's at least a bit of an exception. fake edit: quote:A new city of Minneapolis housing program aims to promote middle-sized housing complexes to encourage affordability and equity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
actionjackson posted:We definitely have #5 in Minneapolis; I guess we are an outlier (?). My radicalizing moment was attending a neighborhood meeting about a proposed new four-story apartment building that brought out the well-off, white Boomers in the neighborhood to scream about how renters are dirty, noisy, and just don't fit the character of the neighborhood. They proceeded to levy a series of costly lawsuits against the developer and the city and nearly succeeded in getting their transit corridor zoned down to allow only single-family homes. It's important to note that Minneapolis and cities like it often have a number of duplexes, triplexes, and even fourplexes sprinkled throughout the city, grandfathered in before the application of zoning codes that effectively replaced racially-restrictive covenants. Streets.mn does some great work on housing and transportation policy in the Cities. I'd much prefer city and regional governments directly investing in, owning, and managing new housing than loving landlords, but the social and climate imperative of building up our cities is great enough that I'll accept the latter so long as we fight for inclusive zoning, rent control, and elimination of parking minimums along with it
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 20:13
|
|