|
Sri.Theo posted:I always found this example interesting when we talk about how much the market can lower rents. I do understand it might not apple everywhere. The market causing prices to spike 300% over eight years followed by a retrenchment of about 40% in the twelve years after that is a pattern that results in mass displacement and/or homelessness among the original residents.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
seeing your house as more of an investment rather than a place to live, and also your home being by far your biggest asset seems to be a root cause of all the NIMBY stuff. Anything that could possibly cause the value of that home to go down would scare you to death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:seeing your house as more of an investment rather than a place to live, and also your home being by far your biggest asset seems to be a root cause of all the NIMBY stuff. Anything that could possibly cause the value of that home to go down would scare you to death. I think a lot about the massive federal and financial machinery dedicated to allowing ordinary people to finance massive debt specifically and only for the purpose of owning a house that is far beyond their means. Both how effective a control mechanism that is to yoke people to capital interests, and how fragile it has made our cities and society. It's not just tying the majority of people's net worth (and financial security via debt) to a single ill-liquid asset that they must defend at all costs, it also makes people hyper-aware of property owners' issues. It makes everyone their own landlord, basically, unable to find a good place to live any other way (because we've made most reasonably affordable styles of family housing illegal in huge areas of our cities) and unable to decouple themselves from the interests of the giant bank holding their mortgage note.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2020 07:41
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:ordinary people... unable to decouple themselves from the interests of the giant bank holding their mortgage note. Can you believe that the guy who coined the term "homevoter" meant it in a positive light!?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I agree and think zoning reform has become achievable because the interests of homeowners are waning while the interests of developers are waxing across most incomes in most cities. Upzoning on its own is just opening the door to value extraction and capital influx. However, mass social housing of any kind (whether we're talking public housing purchase or construction via taxation or fees on development, subsidies, or rent control) is still radioactive for most local politics. Also, upzoning as a stand-alone item seems to corrupt local politics just as badly as single-family zoning does; you're just substituting capital for racist NIMBYs at the table. That may actually be worse since developers tend to both be better funded and harder to organize effective political resistance against than our current political opposition. I have a sad, dark premonition that every city that fails to tackle equity during upzoning is going to lock themselves in and never be able to muster the political support for it ever again. Sorry if it’s derails the discussion (which I am enjoying btw) but I clicked on this thread because there is/was a fierce zoning battle waged on Twitter in my city over the past few weeks. This is in Baltimore and, trying my best to explain this with little background in urban planning, basically a city council bill proposes removing a law requiring off street parking minimums for residential buildings. I think one reason this bill was originally proposed was to make the city less car-centric. It didn’t take long for some community associations (among them some very wealthy enclaves) to argue against the the bill, claiming it would negatively impact homeownership rates, because one function of parking minimums is to discourage developers/landlords from carving up houses into apartments. Then it seemed like an army of liberals and leftists on twitter countered that the bill will incentivize infill development, that current house prices are unaffordable, parking minimums are “redlining by another name”, and (here’s the part I’m most skeptical about) infill development would create affordable housing. Anyway, is this what is meant by upzoning? Does this fit into the discussion, or or this a completely different topic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
uncloudy day posted:Anyway, is this what is meant by upzoning? Does this fit into the discussion, or or this a completely different topic? it's related very closely upzoning is the idea that various restrictions should be lifted on zones so that denser housing can be built. there are many such restrictions, the most direct being codes that distinctly enforce single family detached homes. things like "your structure needs to be located at least 25 feet from the property line" aka a setback, or "only half the lot can be covered by a structure and the maximum height of this structure is 30 feet" aka a form based code. sometimes zones directly enforce limits on how many people can live in a house. there's lots of things you can do one of these things, less common in housing, is restricting how many parking spaces are available per lot. the idea being that you can't put an apartment building or condos or something on a lot if it only has six parking spaces available, in a neighborhood where you would expect each unit to have at least one or two parking spaces each. on the other side, you can enforce minimums for off street parking to cap the size of buildings, since if a developer adds more units or square footage they have to add more parking spaces, meaning that you either do parking the cheap way with a parking lot and this takes up lot space, or you do the expensive thing and build a garage which can easily be way too expensive for a smaller sized building to be economical uncloudy day posted:basically a city council bill proposes removing a law requiring off street parking minimums for residential buildings. I think one reason this bill was originally proposed was to make the city less car-centric. yes, this is a good law imo uncloudy day posted:It didn’t take long for some community associations (among them some very wealthy enclaves) to argue against the the bill, claiming it would negatively impact homeownership rates  uncloudy day posted:because one function of parking minimums is to discourage developers/landlords from carving up houses into apartments. ehhhh sort of but this is more of a fig leaf for people who want to prevent conversions where single family homes get turned into duplexes, triplexes, or shared housing uncloudy day posted:Then it seemed like an army of liberals and leftists on twitter countered that the bill will incentivize infill development, that current house prices are unaffordable, parking minimums are “redlining by another name” agreed with all this uncloudy day posted:(here’s the part I’m most skeptical about) infill development would create affordable housing. yes, i am also deeply skeptical about this. infill housing creates more housing. there is no guarantee at all this will have any impact whatsoever on affordability. more housing can make housing more expensive, weirdly this discussion is not directly upzoning, but it's close enough as a related topic as to hit the same story beats
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
Parking minimums are a policy at the dark nexus of racist NIMBYs and corporate developers. They help exclude housing forms and policies that rely on mass transit (and ensure everyone will be locked into car-centric patterns of behavior and mobility by effectively subsidizing parking for all residents via hidden cost). NIMBYs love this because poor people who want to live (or continue to live) in a densifying/gentrifying area with a higher CoL often have to rely on one or zero cars for their household or move to a cheaper area where they can afford two cars on top of housing. Enforcing parking minimums ensures that everyone has to pay for parking indirectly even if they don't want it. And since everyone in their area is going to be using cars, transit-favoring residents and development forms will be kept out of their area (or gradually forced out), and transit will either be blocked out or gradually destroyed because everyone is getting free subsidized parking and the development forms are not conducive to transit. Bigger developers also love this because regulatory and subsidy hurdles that impact you less the bigger you are are an effective regulatory tool for excluding smaller competitors from the marketplace. It's not just that building parking costs money that makes development less viable on smaller buildings overall - it also costs more money per space in smaller buildings to construct it because things like garage ramps, ventilation, curb cut permits, and parking lanes cost more on a per-space basis if you're building 10 spaces than they do if you're building 100. This has the effect of chilling smaller development in favor of whole-block redevelopment and pushing capital flows toward the biggest development and construction companies. Sometimes policies that favor larger developers over individuals or smaller developers are a net good, but this one sure as gently caress isn't. It's also important to understand that most/all of these policies were originally instituted as transformative, reactionary, white supremacist policies to begin with.This is why a lot of older buildings (even those from as late as the 60s and 70s) don't conform to development codes like parking minimums. After the housing components of the civil rights law in 1968 passed, people started building those housing forms in rich white neighborhoods as a way to make desirable neighborhoods accessible to folks who were previously excluded by racial covenants and poorer, blacker and browner residents started moving into them. Ed: Want to make super clear- those developers building the duplexes and stuff I'm referring to here were doing this to profit from non-white residents' desire to live in desirable neighborhoods, not because of any form of restorative program. Since it was no longer strictly legal to just explicitly ban non-whites from your neighborhood, white homeowner groups came up with all these other reactionary laws to suppress housing forms that could be accessible to poorer non-whites to keep their area as white as possible as long as possible. Coincidentally, you'll also notice that modern upzone and infill proposals are almost always centered on minority-majority neighborhoods in cities whose other neighborhoods were previously subject to racial exclusion clauses... The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Sep 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 23:34
|
|
|
Thanks, this makes sense. I feel like a relevant data point, in attempting to predict whether this potential new development will be potentially affordable, is that Baltimore’s population has been in decline for decades — not sure how that fits into the equation. Anyway I’ll take some time to digest these points and will probably be back to complain soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Re: Mandatory Parking Here's a vox.com article summarizing it: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone Here's a magazine article by the guy himself, from back when he was first doing the work: https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-1997/the-high-cost-of-free-parking/ It's pretty digestible. Here's the cover of his book:  ADORABLE. Real estate development summary: parking spaces are real expensive. they have to be paid for somehow. A 20 unit apartment building might be required to have with 20 parking spaces, and those spaces might cost $20,000 each (no really the research supports that price). If the cost of building them causes the ROI on the apartment to fall below the target, the apartment doesn't get built. That's 20 homes that don't exist in your city. Environmentalism summary: parking lots are huge. they consume a lot of land, they send a lot of nasty polluted runoff into our rivers, they make the urban heat island really bad, and they cause people to drive (see below) Urban design summary: parking lots are loving enormous and increase the distance between trip origins and destinations, making walking impossible and driving compulsory. (If you can't afford a car, you have to walk anyway, and that is hours spent in misery.) Walking across or along one parking lot might add a quarter mile to your trip, but when every shopping center and apartment has a quarter mile of parking, your destination is miles away. Transportation summary: all of the parking spreads people out, making it harder for a bus network to have stops within walking distances of enough people to make running the bus worthwhile. All that extra driving means political demand to widen roads to chase that free-flowing traffic "Level of Service" dragon. Economic summary: forcing landowners and developers to provide more parking than they otherwise would is a subsidy supporting driving, paid for by people without cars Don Shoup says: Cities should stop forcing developers to provide parking. If there is a demand for parking, they will provide it. If more people want to park than there is room, put a price on the parking. I say: We already spent trillions of dollars building city and neighborhood streets that are twice as wide as they need to be for fire trucks and garbage trucks to maneuver in them. We did this so that there would be free street parking at every curb, everywhere. If that parking isn't being used, it's wasted space. It is disgusting to dedicate so much of our cities and so much work to giving cars places to sleep when there are people who have no places to sleep. Greg12 fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Sep 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Widened and added traffic lanes are also empirically worse for pedestrian and bike safety and increase vehicle collisions, and the RoW used for parking carries 0 people per hour so that an empty car can chill by the curb for hours (serving one person's desire for convenience rather than any beneficial public objective). So in addition to being against parking minimums in development codes I am also in favor of seizing parking back from the public right-of-way for other purposes as well. There are plenty of worthy ones: transit lanes, BAT lanes, PBLs, widened sidewalks, street cafes, food truck zones, parklets, etc. etc. Parking subsidies of all types are theft, from mostly poor people living mostly in cities, to further enrich mostly well-off people who live mostly outside the city. For example, Sound Transit's Sounder heavy commuter rail expansion project paid anywhere from $115,000 to $216,000 per parking stall so that suburban car/rail commuters can live even further out in the sprawl, drive halfway, and then take a train in the rest of the way. That's on top of the climate disaster that we're subsidizing by paying public funds toward more car ownership and incentivizing driving from even further distances (not to mention the myriad other disastrous consequences of subsidizing the exurban development itself). The ultimate expression and result of privileging and subsidizing private car ownership is demolishing minority and poor neighborhoods (that also happen to be very compact and sustainable) to lay more freeway lanes. So yeah, less parking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
not all california democrats are dishonest https://twitter.com/AngryYuca/status/1307550996256571392
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:Re: Mandatory Parking donald shoup also posts a lot of his more cited works for free on his website http://www.shoupdogg.com/ 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
cool video featuring two thread favs, halfassed urban planning and eerie cityscapes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvCUgWnptUc
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
London planners, postwar: "Ello Guv. Public places would be better if they were privately owned and inaccessible." London planners, post-High Line: "quite so, but they can only work if they're WIGGLY and have lots of tripping hazards." Here's my favorite planning movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GGqSkDXOSg The blocking is just so much fun. They get up on those wheeled stairs and draw straight lines fifty feet long while handing off the narrative to other architects in gray flannel suits. See if you can catch the sneaky framing in the "OMG BLIGHT" shot, where they didn't quite keep the entire street full of well-maintained row houses out of one of the shots of the one house on the street with a crumbling porch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
sociologist william h whyte did some good work studying how people use urban spaces - their field research was basically just hanging out on rooftops filming people in public using public spaces. his book "the social life of small urban spaces" was influential, and there was a companion documentary which is pretty funny in its observations of human behavior. it always gets pulled down from copyright claims but it's worth finding a copy if possible. notable highlights - people love to move poo poo and if people are having a conversation in public, they prefer to stand directly in the middle of traffic flow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uowJa3pstlw
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Usually house-owners use coded racist/classist language to object to affordable housing proposals in their neighborhood ("this isn't the kind of neighborhood for affordable housing!" and "this would disrupt the neighborhood character!"), but this lady clearly missed the memo https://twitter.com/_Almaqah/status/1311516809582063616?s=19 Once you get the bile out of your mouth, check out this actually good rundown of six lovely city charter provisions that desperately need to be changed: https://streets.mn/2020/10/01/addition-by-subtraction-six-anti-equity-items-to-remove-from-the-saint-paul-city-code/
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:sociologist william h whyte did some good work studying how people use urban spaces - their field research was basically just hanging out on rooftops filming people in public using public spaces. his book "the social life of small urban spaces" was influential, and there was a companion documentary which is pretty funny in its observations of human behavior. it always gets pulled down from copyright claims but it's worth finding a copy if possible. notable highlights - people love to move poo poo and if people are having a conversation in public, they prefer to stand directly in the middle of traffic flow Every midcentury pedestrian mall failed because they ignored everything in this. "These suburban malls are killing central business district retail! What can we do?" "Those malls have managed tenant mixes that include the same chains that are in the CBD, are closer to the shoppers' new white flight neighborhoods, have acres of free parking, are indoors, and have fountains with geometric planters. QUICK! BUILD FOUNTAINS AND GEOMETRIC PLANTERS! TEN BLOCKS OF THEM!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:Every midcentury pedestrian mall failed because they ignored everything in this.  Malls are private property and can charge the poor, Black, and homeless with trespass so their security can throw them out; let's form a BID and invent crimes like loitering so that the cops can do that for us in the CBD
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:Every midcentury pedestrian mall failed because they ignored everything in this. Well that and they were given huge tax breaks and went up in places where it made no sense. Also, the initial idea was the to be almost mini cities with stores and walking parks and all of that. But it became oops, all stores and strip malls. It's interesting living the the Greater Boston suburbs and see these 70s strip malls still able to survive but drat are they ugly and a waste of land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Well that and they were given huge tax breaks and went up in places where it made no sense. Also, the initial idea was the to be almost mini cities with stores and walking parks and all of that. But it became oops, all stores and strip malls. It's interesting living the the Greater Boston suburbs and see these 70s strip malls still able to survive but drat are they ugly and a waste of land. Rt 1 north of Boston is a special kind of urban hellscape. Just miles of inaccessible ugly strip malls. No transit, no pedestrian access, and its layout is even hostile to cars even if there was no traffic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
funkymonks posted:Rt 1 north of Boston is a special kind of urban hellscape. Just miles of inaccessible ugly strip malls. No transit, no pedestrian access, and its layout is even hostile to cars even if there was no traffic. Yeah, it's pretty disgusting. Feels like it goes on forever, too. On an unrelated note, if you pay attention to this thread, you might find this TrueAnon ep interesting: https://soundcloud.com/trueanonpod/everything-is-bad The podcast's description posted:Legendary author and activist Mike Davis joins us to talk about the California wildfires, real estate developers, climate change, evangelicalism and so much more Insanite fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Oct 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 14:16
|
|
|
funkymonks posted:Rt 1 north of Boston is a special kind of urban hellscape. Just miles of inaccessible ugly strip malls. No transit, no pedestrian access, and its layout is even hostile to cars even if there was no traffic. I lived in Malden, totally get it. I live south of Boston now, the South East seems to be doing decent in building apartments though the Single Family Homes that are the modern over 2200 square feet are ugly and watest of space. Then I futility argue to people on our local town page that apartments don't lead to crime and resource drain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
I went through my master's capstone and figured I would pull out some articles that I think people should read if you are interested in housing policy: SUBURBIA SHIFTED: OVERLOOKED TRENDS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN SUBURBAN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, Nicolas Larco Keeping the Underclass In Its Place: Zoning, the Poor, and Residential Segregation David Papke Prospects for walkable, mixed-income neighborhoods: insights from U.S. developers Emily Talen Public Opinion and Affordable Housing: A Review of the Literature Rosie Tighe I think these articles given you a great idea on what you have to fight to push through the crappy zoning laws in this country and how affordable housing is perceived.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I went through my master's capstone and figured I would pull out some articles that I think people should read if you are interested in housing policy: It looks like the Talen and Tighe articles are unfortunately behind paywalls. From the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. SCOTUS ruling in Papke: quote:With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in Oof size: large. It's pretty illuminating that the idea that detached SFH neighborhoods full of white people, which exist basically by the virtue of wealth transfer via extractive taxation and exploitation from those living in denser, poorer, and more diverse neighborhoods have always been thought of as fundamentally better than neighborhoods that contain any apartments at all and that apartment buildings parasitize SFH neighborhoods. The truth is the exact opposite. SFH neighborhoods and the people who live in them can't exist without a population to parasitize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
remember that euclid vs. ambler was decided in a time when cities were only a few decades past having horse poo poo and garbage covering the streets. there was a huge emphasis on open greenspace as being healthful, which dovetailed nicely with the socioeconomic darwinism of the gilded age and the idea that leafy suburbs were for the deserving middle class. even SFH neighborhoods in a ped/streetcar era would have been much denser than what we consider SFH neighborhoods today - not just the surviving prestige streetcar suburbs, but in many places low income SFH neighborhoods existed with small homes crammed practically on top of each other so the innovation here isn't SFH neighborhoods, but ones with more distance between the residences as not just a measure of light and health but also as a blaring display of wealth and status, since in a ped-mode era physical distance is also social distance
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:remember that euclid vs. ambler was decided in a time when cities were only a few decades past having horse poo poo and garbage covering the streets. there was a huge emphasis on open greenspace as being healthful, which dovetailed nicely with the socioeconomic darwinism of the gilded age and the idea that leafy suburbs were for the deserving middle class. even SFH neighborhoods in a ped/streetcar era would have been much denser than what we consider SFH neighborhoods today - not just the surviving prestige streetcar suburbs, but in many places low income SFH neighborhoods existed with small homes crammed practically on top of each other It's just interesting to see the "those people are parasites" narrative was there from the very beginning since it's such an absurd counterfactual to the actual labor and value relationship between the people trying to exclude others from these neighborhoods and the people trying to find a way to live there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
yeah, early 20th century attitudes towards wealth and citizenship were much, much closer to the 17th century than the 21st. it was nearly a tautology in terms of the circular thinking between how poor people live in poor neighborhoods vs rich people in rich neighborhoods, and how this was linked to an immobile social class rather than there being some idea that the built environment and concentrating poverty itself is something which caps social mobility
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:It looks like the Talen and Tighe articles are unfortunately behind paywalls. That Papke article is great (he turned it into a book) because basically its a go to guide on how to create racist policy without having to bring race into anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:yeah, early 20th century attitudes towards wealth and citizenship were much, much closer to the 17th century than the 21st. it was nearly a tautology in terms of the circular thinking between how poor people live in poor neighborhoods vs rich people in rich neighborhoods, and how this was linked to an immobile social class rather than there being some idea that the built environment and concentrating poverty itself is something which caps social mobility I see this exact same narrative with a little bit of camouflage on it in Seattle, as of this week, and have never not seen it in the twenty odd years I've lived here. Generally it hits all of the following beats: 1. My (single family, white) neighborhood is the best kind of neighborhood because of "neighborhood character," which is just a different way of phrasing the same idea in these court opinions. 2. It's bad when people build apartments near me because light/traffic/crime will come with that; those buildings are parasitizing my good neighborhood. 3. Any incremental move to allow more people to live in these areas (even truly baby-step level changes like reduced offstreet parking requirements, multi-family divisions, ADUs/DADUs, or reduced minimum lot sizes) is putting us on a slippery slope toward the total destruction of the neighborhood and all must be opposed. The only concession white homeowners will make is that if we MUST have density/upzoning in order to achieve policy objectives that we're now agreed are good (or are too afraid to challenge), we'll put it either in places that are already dense ("urban villages" which are nothing more than strips along transit corridors and don't extend more than a block or two away from an arterial being further upzoned so you go from apartment buildings straight back to SFHs) or we'll upzone the SFH areas that are more diverse and less white. So I guess I see a pretty clear throughline with little change in base attitude from these early 20th century opinions to today, even in a city with a "progressive" reputation that's seen housing costs skyrocket over the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Why don't the homevoters understand that allowing them to build bigger things will make Their Precious appreciate even more in value I cannot ever understand these assholes
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
plenty of homeowners do understand that for the ones who don't, "my property values" generally takes two forms first, an irrational fear that this would somehow lead to a loss of property value second, the use of "but my property value" as staking more of a claim to police the behavior, appearance, and residency of their neighborhood
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:Why don't the homevoters understand that allowing them to build bigger things will make Their Precious appreciate even more in value The ones here assume the opposite, and that it will attract “the wrong sort” who will bring “increased crime”. When pressed on this matter, I was accused of being a troll. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
the subtle play here is to accuse people concerned about their property values of not caring about the neighborhood, because if they're looking at the listing price of their property it means they're thinking of leaving and so they're not in it for the long haul. you could then combo that with something like "oh so you want your property taxes to go UP???"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:Why don't the homevoters understand that allowing them to build bigger things will make Their Precious appreciate even more in value Property value is code for whiteness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:the subtle play here is to accuse people concerned about their property values of not caring about the neighborhood, because if they're looking at the listing price of their property it means they're thinking of leaving and so they're not in it for the long haul. you could then combo that with something like "oh so you want your property taxes to go UP???" The whole "caring about the neighborhood" aspect is a pretty funny defense. When Minneapolis was passing their 2040 plan to upzone the city to allow triplexes, this was a common defense (e.g. "they'll bulldoze our neighborhood"). My response was to say if they and their neighbors truly care about their neighborhood, they could just not sell to the highest bidder if it's a developer. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:Why don't the homevoters understand that allowing them to build bigger things will make Their Precious appreciate even more in value They don't want black people in their town. I literally showed someone a report that said property value is either unchanged or still goes up with density and apartments and they said they didn't care what the research said. They are still under the belief that the inner city poverty from the 40s to the 90s was caused by the apartments going up and not the you know massive disinvestment in these areas. I will say I do think towns should have some control on how their town looks but you can still build dense housing in small and medium sized communities without losing its character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:the subtle play here is to accuse people concerned about their property values of not caring about the neighborhood, because if they're looking at the listing price of their property it means they're thinking of leaving and so they're not in it for the long haul. you could then combo that with something like "oh so you want your property taxes to go UP???" poo poo this is brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Kalit posted:The whole "caring about the neighborhood" aspect is a pretty funny defense. When Minneapolis was passing their 2040 plan to upzone the city to allow triplexes, this was a common defense (e.g. "they'll bulldoze our neighborhood"). My response was to say if they and their neighbors truly care about their neighborhood, they could just not sell to the highest bidder if it's a developer. Problem solved. Turns out the anti-bulldozing folk don't give a gently caress if the person is wealthy and white.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
"it turns out that the old man in Up was the villain"
Greg12 fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Kalit posted:The whole "caring about the neighborhood" aspect is a pretty funny defense. When Minneapolis was passing their 2040 plan to upzone the city to allow triplexes, this was a common defense (e.g. "they'll bulldoze our neighborhood"). My response was to say if they and their neighbors truly care about their neighborhood, they could just not sell to the highest bidder if it's a developer. Problem solved. The thing is that even if it's allowed, it won't happen that much, and certainly not quickly. Anecdotally...we went to an open house while on a short vacation on El Paso last year. We were considering moving there if there was the right job for one of us there. One house we saw was perfect for us. The size, the look, the neighborhood...I liked it a lot. In the backyard was an 350 square foot building with it's own heating/AC unit. According to the realtor, the previous owners built it so their teenage son could have "his own place" to hang out with friends, and after he moved out, they did wedding dress alterations in that building. Denver brain kicked in..."hey, there's no plumbing in here, but it's big enough to maybe stick in a small bathroom and a kitchenette. That'd be kind of cool. Maybe rent it out for a few hundred a month to a single person? We have the parking." The cost just to get it hooked to the sewer system would be around 10k. For a 160K house. My thoughts then change to "Maybe a pool table, mini-fridge, and a couple of couches?" It's simply not feasible for masses of people to suddenly pop tops and do ADU'S. Unless everyone starts selling their houses to Zillow or Trula, who might start doing things like that in hot markets. Which would give me really mixed feelings IF they managed to bend the cost curve down (hint: they won't), at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:05
|
|
