NIMBYS now kneecapping UC system

[Zorba]

This is because Texas has a shitload of empty space so land is very cheap. This isn’t related to zoning, it’s just generally more amenable to sprawl. Texas also doesn’t have a housing crisis anything like the northeast or west coast.

Where abolishment of zoning would really come in handy is in the areas where free land is very hard to come by so your only real solution is to build up because you can no longer build out.

People talk about NYC and say ‘it’s super dense but also super expensive’ but they miss the point that its density is largely the result of a bygone era. Per capita housing production in the city has been among the lowest in the country for a long time now, which has caused housing prices to skyrocket.

Zoning could fix that sprawl, though. If you zoned corridors of high density and then areas of lower density and very little commercial further away from highways and public transit. Instead you get low density housing right next to the train station, and apartments miles from highways or trains.

And like I've said many times, mature parts of the city should be redeveloped. I think this is a huge problem with OKC (city, not metro), huge parts of it where developed like shit from day one, and with really poor construction. The city should go in and select areas to rezone into new multi family development, preferably along next public transit routes.

And unless it is Abe Lincoln's house, historic districts need to mostly die. A square mile of starter homes from 1953 is not historic and it prevents them from being upgraded or replaced with better stock.

 

[fskimospy]

I couldn't just move somewhere else that isn't true under what you propose. Also CCR are not enforced by the government, they are contracts between the homeowners within a community. The only time the government gets involved is if one homeowner sues another for breach of contract.

So in other words your issue is not with the apartment building but your lack of ability to force your neighbors to live in housing you approve of. After all it would be easy to find a house that’s not next to an apartment building.

Also CCRs like all contracts are exclusively enforced by the government. Without the government you couldn’t force anyone to abide by them.

Except you just said "if you don't want to live like that you don't have to." Having no zoning means you have absolutely zero say in what your community, even if your immediate community looks like. That mean you have absolutely no ability to decide how you live, period.

You have every ability to decide how you live. If your immediate community displeases you, move to one that doesn’t. Zoning laws are all about forcing other people to live in ways they don’t want to, not the other way around.

When I sign a contract, I expect people to honor that contract. But again, I've fine with replanning, but it shouldn't be a complete free for all where anyone can do whatever they want on "their property." It is pretty clear you've never seen what rednecks do with "their property."

You never signed a contract that said zoning laws could not be abolished. But yes, it should be a free for all. So long as you are not endangering anyone’s health or safety you should be able to build any house you feel like.

You completely dodged what I was saying, for the 100th time. I'm guess that is because you don't understand that how much responsibility for public infrastructure gets dumped on to HOAs. In the last year my HOA has spent over 100K doing work that would've fallen onto the city without that HOA and if you take away the CCR, you take away the free maintenance too.

It’s not free, and if HOAs want to respond to a change in laws by refusing to maintain their properties that’s not only bad for their property values but is also easily fixed through taxation. So I say go right ahead and see what that gets them, haha.

But I thought you were pro the owner's right to do what they wanted to do with their land? You take away our CCRs, people will drill in our neighborhood, there is no other law preventing it. (He's one such case, I could post many more: https://goo.gl/maps/1n7q8sSc84VTvaHRA)

I’ve had this discussion many times and I’ve always been clear that I’m talking about residential zoning restrictions because they are pointless and immensely destructive. I do and always have supported restrictions on where industrial development can take place because it directly affects human health and safety. It’s the same reason why I support residential building safety codes.

You can increase density through planned efforts, with zoning. This would be the most effective way of encouraging dense pockets and public transportation and reduce sprawl. Free for all won't do that and will make it where no middle class person could afford to live in a neighborhood that is safe from a noxious neighbor. Rich people would still find away to shut out noxious neighbors, of course.

Central planning of economic forces is generally a bad idea. Far better to just let the free market decide where housing gets built.

After all I’m not aware of any zoning ordinance that REQUIRES dense housing be built in certain areas. That honestly sounds like making the exact same mistake in reverse and I would oppose that too.

 

[Zorba]

So in other words your issue is not with the apartment building but your lack of ability to force your neighbors to live in housing you approve of. After all it would be easy to find a house that’s not next to an apartment building.

Until that neighbor put in an apartment... My neighbor signed a contract agreeing to only use his property for certain things, I did not make him sign that contract. In return for him signing it, I also signed one.

Also CCRs like all contracts are exclusively enforced by the government. Without the government you couldn’t force anyone to abide by them.

Duh.

You have every ability to decide how you live. If your immediate community displeases you, move to one that doesn’t. Zoning laws are all about forcing other people to live in ways they don’t want to, not the other way around.

This is laughably wrong. Zoning laws are put into place by elected governments. People willingly sign CCRs. People buy into property zoned a specific way because that is where they want to live.

You never signed a contract that said zoning laws could not be abolished. But yes, it should be a free for all. So long as you are not endangering anyone’s health or safety you should be able to build any house you feel like.

Great. I did sign a contract that stated what I could or could not do on my property. Zoning laws have jack shit to do with that contract.

It’s not free, and if HOAs want to respond to a change in laws by refusing to maintain their properties that’s not only bad for their property values but is also easily fixed through taxation. So I say go right ahead and see what that gets them, haha.

Without CCRs HOAs would desolve very quickly. It would then be on the cities to maintain storm drainage, ponds, and water ways. Clean up debris, etc. Around here at least property taxes can't be used for cities, so they'd have to raise sales tax to do it. I'm sure that would help get them reelected "We are raising sales tax by 3% so we can abolish CCRs, so Jim Bob can run a hotel in his back yard." But literally no one would serve on an HOA if it's only purpose was to support the city's off load.

I’ve had this discussion many times and I’ve always been clear that I’m talking about residential zoning restrictions because they are pointless and immensely destructive. I do and always have supported restrictions on where industrial development can take place because it directly affects human health and safety. It’s the same reason why I support residential building safety codes.

Central planning of economic forces is generally a bad idea. Far better to just let the free market decide where housing gets built.

The free market is short sighted as hell, like you already admitted about Texas. It's a sprawling mess, because that is what makes sense economically today. It's cheaper to built a neighborhood in North Frisco than high rise in South Plano... for the developer.

After all I’m not aware of any zoning ordinance that REQUIRES dense housing be built in certain areas. That honestly sounds like making the exact same mistake in reverse and I would oppose that too.

You've never heard of multi-family and high density multi-family zoning?

Definition of Medium Density Residential in OKC: "The R-3M District is a medium density residential district that encourages multi-family developments representing a broad variety of housing types. The regulations are designed to facilitate medium-density infill residential development, compatible with other nearby residential uses. Provisions are made for conditional approval of those uses that support and service the development in a manner that will not have a harmful effect on the character of existing neighborhoods and will reduce dependence upon automobile transportation by encouraging population densities that support mass transportation."

 

[Moonbeam]

Every desirable place to live will have its desirability thereby destroyed. I understand that when the age of Aquarius dawned there was a time of flowering beauty. Then the degenerates flooded in destroying everything with addiction and marketing.

This is because Texas has a shitload of empty space so land is very cheap. This isn’t related to zoning, it’s just generally more amenable to sprawl. Texas also doesn’t have a housing crisis anything like the northeast or west coast.

Where abolishment of zoning would really come in handy is in the areas where free land is very hard to come by so your only real solution is to build up because you can no longer build out.

People talk about NYC and say ‘it’s super dense but also super expensive’ but they miss the point that its density is largely the result of a bygone era. Per capita housing production in the city has been among the lowest in the country for a long time now, which has caused housing prices to skyrocket.

I guess that now that there are a whole lot of people with their own little piece of that sacred density they don’t want more of it in their neighborhood. Or is it that the cost and the capacity to support more of it isn’t any longer profitable. The maintenance of the infrastructure must be a tax burden bitch. I notice where I am they keep proposing new bonds for the sewers. Water and gas and garbage are through the roof. I think you would get condemned if you used an incinerator toilet and combined atmospheric water with water purification and turned off at the water meter. When I was a kid we took our garbage to the local dump. Lots of money these days in garbage. We just needed corporate efficiency and offended noses, flies, rats, seagulls and that sort of thing.

Remember glaciers in the Sierra Mountains. I drank hundreds of gallons of snow melt up there with nary a fear of giardia. At altitude in bright sun and hiking you sweat and it evaporated quick. You could drink up there from rivulets every few feet. Density took care of that.
Unfortunately for cowboy mentality Texas home on the range is going to be home next to pay for parking. Cheap land and cheap housing and low wages and anti union is making Texas desirable for the psychopath business class and desperate people will surely move in. Better buy now while you can.

 

[fskimospy]

Until that neighbor put in an apartment... My neighbor signed a contract agreeing to only use his property for certain things, I did not make him sign that contract. In return for him signing it, I also signed one.

Right - first this is not zoning but secondly as I said I would support legislation invalidating those provisions. The law can and does change.

This is laughably wrong. Zoning laws are put into place by elected governments. People willingly sign CCRs. People buy into property zoned a specific way because that is where they want to live.

Right - now think this through. If you ban any kind of denser living arrangements then you’re left with the people who don’t want them.

‘man, once we made it impossible for anyone who disagrees with us to live here, everyone here agrees with us! The people have spoken!’

Great. I did sign a contract that stated what I could or could not do on my property. Zoning laws have jack shit to do with that contract.

Without CCRs HOAs would desolve very quickly. It would then be on the cities to maintain storm drainage, ponds, and water ways. Clean up debris, etc. Around here at least property taxes can't be used for cities, so they'd have to raise sales tax to do it. I'm sure that would help get them reelected "We are raising sales tax by 3% so we can abolish CCRs, so Jim Bob can run a hotel in his back yard." But literally no one would serve on an HOA if it's only purpose was to support the city's off load.

Your HOA fees are essentially property taxes by a different namethe idea that changing the funding mechanism for infrastructure maintenance is some sort of insurmountable obstacle is very wrong. You could just change the law and add a property tax payable to the city for an identical sum of what the fees are now. They have zero leverage.

Also I would love to see how long the HOA board lasts when they say they are letting the neighborhood get flooded because the city let Jim Bob build an ADU.

The free market is short sighted as hell, like you already admitted about Texas. It's a sprawling mess, because that is what makes sense economically today. It's cheaper to built a neighborhood in North Frisco than high rise in South Plano... for the developer.

I didn’t admit it was short sighted, I think sprawl makes sense for Texas as land is plentiful. I also think our central planning approach has been an unmitigated catastrophe.

You've never heard of multi-family and high density multi-family zoning?

Definition of Medium Density Residential in OKC: "The R-3M District is a medium density residential district that encourages multi-family developments representing a broad variety of housing types. The regulations are designed to facilitate medium-density infill residential development, compatible with other nearby residential uses. Provisions are made for conditional approval of those uses that support and service the development in a manner that will not have a harmful effect on the character of existing neighborhoods and will reduce dependence upon automobile transportation by encouraging population densities that support mass transportation."

I sure have! Can you point me to where in that it bans the construction of single family housing or mandates a minimum number of units per development?

People don’t realize that if you wanted to you could make a single family home in midtown Manhattan. Nobody does this because from an economic standpoint it would be insane, but you could.

 

[Moonbeam]

People don’t realize that if you wanted to you could make a single family home in midtown Manhattan. Nobody does this because from an economic standpoint it would be insane, but you could.

Well at least now I know you could pass legislation to promote density housing but it would be insane economically if you priced it affordably. You would have to sell at a catastrophic loss.

As long as land availability is limited and desirability remains high no amount of density will outpace demand and a high cost to buy in. High density housing in land scarce locations will not help the homeless who prefer to be homeless in highly desirable locations.

 

[sandorski]

Living in a Home vs Living next to someone elses Home?

If there is a Housing shortage, one of these positions should be ignored.

 

[fskimospy]

Well at least now I know you could pass legislation to promote density housing but it would be insane economically if you priced it affordably. You would have to sell at a catastrophic loss.

As long as land availability is limited and desirability remains high no amount of density will outpace demand and a high cost to buy in. High density housing in land scarce locations will not help the homeless who prefer to be homeless in highly desirable locations.

So your claim now is that supply and demand doesn’t apply to housing? That’s…uhm…interesting.

I’m interested to hear why the median home price in LA has increased by nearly 250% in the last 10 years then while only increasing by about 20% in the 10 years before that, and being relatively flat in the years prior to that. Did they just run a really effective ad campaign that made everyone want to move there starting in about 2012?

 

[Zorba]

Right - first this is not zoning but secondly as I said I would support legislation invalidating those provisions. The law can and does change.


Right - now think this through. If you ban any kind of denser living arrangements then you’re left with the people who don’t want them.

‘man, once we made it impossible for anyone who disagrees with us to live here, everyone here agrees with us! The people have spoken!’



Your HOA fees are essentially property taxes by a different namethe idea that changing the funding mechanism for infrastructure maintenance is some sort of insurmountable obstacle is very wrong. You could just change the law and add a property tax payable to the city for an identical sum of what the fees are now. They have zero leverage.

Also I would love to see how long the HOA board lasts when they say they are letting the neighborhood get flooded because the city let Jim Bob build an ADU.


I didn’t admit it was short sighted, I think sprawl makes sense for Texas as land is plentiful. I also think our central planning approach has been an unmitigated catastrophe.


I sure have! Can you point me to where in that it bans the construction of single family housing or mandates a minimum number of units per development?

People don’t realize that if you wanted to you could make a single family home in midtown Manhattan. Nobody does this because from an economic standpoint it would be insane, but you could.

Okay we fundamentally disagree. I think unmitigated sprawl is a terrible idea and puts huge burdens on cities and infrastructure. Further it makes decent public transit impossible and locks out future density.

You are also being disingenuous claiming under your proposals anyone can live how they want, when without CCRs and zoning literally anything could build nextdoor, which could dramatically impact your ability to enjoy your own property.

I've also never seen a single family home approved to be built in multifamily zoning. Zoning isn't "everything up and including this."

 

[K1052]

I've also never seen a single family home approved to be built in multifamily zoning. Zoning isn't "everything up and including this."

This happens a lot with deconversions in big cities. Somebody buys a 2 or 3 unit building and turns it into a SFH through renovation or they scrape it and build new.

 

[Zorba]

This happens a lot with deconversions in big cities. Somebody buys a 2 or 3 unit building and turns it into a SFH through renovation or they scrape it and build new.

And under @fskimospy proposal there would be nothing to prevent this. Sounds like something easily fixed with proper zoning and enforcement. I'm guessing what actually happens is the rich guy gets a waiver to the zoning from the city, not that the zoning is "this and below."

 

[fskimospy]

Okay we fundamentally disagree. I think unmitigated sprawl is a terrible idea and puts huge burdens on cities and infrastructure. Further it makes decent public transit impossible and locks out future density.

You are also being disingenuous claiming under your proposals anyone can live how they want, when without CCRs and zoning literally anything could build nextdoor, which could dramatically impact your ability to enjoy your own property.

If you didn’t like what your neighbor built next door you could move somewhere more to your liking. I can absolutely assure you there is no lack of single family homes without an apartment building next door. Maybe you don’t want to move though? Well, that’s a choice.

I think the confusion here is you think ‘live however you want’ also includes the right to control what type of house your neighbors live in, or that it ensures your neighborhood will never change, which it does not.

I've also never seen a single family home approved to be built in multifamily zoning. Zoning isn't "everything up and including this."

It really is. Don’t take my word for it, read the regulations yourself. I’ve never seen one with a unit minimum.

Also by the way the approvals process should be largely scrapped as well. Building should be by right for the vast majority of cases instead of the wasteful and corrupt reviews we have now.

 

[K1052]

And under @fskimospy proposal there would be nothing to prevent this. Sounds like something easily fixed with proper zoning and enforcement. I'm guessing what actually happens is the rich guy gets a waiver to the zoning from the city, not that the zoning is "this and below."

At least where I am from you don't need a variance to build less dense than a parcel is zoned for. It's as of right.

 

[Zorba]

If you didn’t like what your neighbor built next door you could move somewhere more to your liking. I can absolutely assure you there is no lack of single family homes without an apartment building next door. Maybe you don’t want to move though? Well, that’s a choice.

And what is the point of moving if the new next neighbor could build an apartment nextdoor the next day? This is why you are being disingenuous. Without zoning or CCRs, you have no say in what kind of area you live in.

 

[Zorba]

At least where I am from you don't need a variance to build less dense than a parcel is zoned for. It's as of right.

Yeah, that should be changed.

 

[fskimospy]

And what is the point of moving if the new next neighbor could build an apartment nextdoor the next day? This is why you are being disingenuous. Without zoning or CCRs, you have no say in what kind of area you live in.

Of course you have a say, you always have a say in where you live. The idea that if we got rid of zoning that you would be chased around the country by apartment building manufacturing neighbors is ludicrous and you know it.

You don’t have a right to stop the construction of anything that may displease you because you happened to buy a piece of property nearby. This misguided thinking has led to the humanitarian catastrophe we have today.

 

[Zorba]

Since I admit when I was wrong. I looked up the full regs in OKC and see that on most of them single family is allowed by right. Because of how zoning is generally done here, I've never seen where a single family has built in higher density zoning, but apparently they could. I think this should be changed, again to promote decent long term sustainability as opposed to endless sprawl that will forever require cars.

 

[Zorba]

Of course you have a say, you always have a say in where you live. The idea that if we got rid of zoning that you would be chased around the country by apartment building manufacturing neighbors is ludicrous and you know it.

You don’t have a right to stop the construction of anything that may displease you because you happened to buy a piece of property nearby. This misguided thinking has led to the humanitarian catastrophe we have today.

You are literally arguing that anyone should be able to do anything with their property while also claiming you could move somewhere where no would do so.

I'm also not taking about blocking an apartment going in adjacent to a developed neighborhood, or replacing a section of that neighborhood. There is a huge difference in having a say on what happens on your PUD verses what happens off of it. And again, I fully support planned redevelopment. I do not support a complete free for all.

 

[fskimospy]

You are literally arguing that anyone should be able to do anything with their property while also claiming you could move somewhere where no would do so.

No, I’m saying that there are an abundance of single family homes in the US that do not neighbor apartment buildings and while if you moved to a new one it would not guarantee no such building would ever be built if we are being realistic here the idea that you would have to keep moving because this happened repeatedly is pretty fanciful. Like have you pissed off some rogue real estate developer who is stalking you or something?

I'm also not taking about blocking an apartment going in adjacent to a developed neighborhood, or replacing a section of that neighborhood. There is a huge difference in having a say on what happens on your PUD verses what happens off of it. And again, I fully support planned redevelopment. I do not support a complete free for all.

I know, I’m saying that ‘planned development’ is what we do now and look where it’s gotten us. A humanitarian catastrophe of mass homelessness. The process is irredeemable.

 

[MrSquished]

This doesn't agree with what you are proposing. I don't want to live next to a pot shop and 40 unit apartment building, so I bought into a neighborhood that matched my desires. If my neighbor could tomorrow turn his property into an apartment complex then I am being forced to live in a way I choose not to.

Also cities dump a shit ton of responsibilities on HOAs, if they decide to get rid of restrictive covenants, I seriously doubt any HOA would continue to provide for maintenance on all the crap the city dumps on them.

As cities evolve areas should be rezoned and redeveloped, but it should be done with a plan. It shouldn't be Jim Bob wants to home build and 4 unit apartment next door to rent out of AirBNB.

Or what would actually happen around here. You buy into a neighborhood that bans oil drilling (not all do around here), and then your neighbor decides to put in a frack well next door. No big deal right? It's his property, who cares if jack pumps are loud and the smell of crude is noxious.

ETA: If my neighborhood got tapped as one of the rezoning areas, so be it, at least I'd know it was coming and could plan accordingly. And hopefully it wouldn't be Jim Bob's AirBNB Shack.

I agree there should be planning for all this and not just a free for all. But I think locales should be restricted in how much of their jurisdiction can only be single family zoning, for example. This can be based on geographical rules. There need to be general rules that make the status quo we have now go away, without making it a free for all either.

 

[pauldun170]

Government is supposed to be the whole for and by the people thing.
In a society of laws, that is how you enshrine the whole concept of live how you want to live.
If a town decides that it wants zoning to shape a community based on families or based on senior citizens or one based on young professionals then they should be able to decide.

There are laws in place to prevent discrimination so stop before any wants to pull a whataboutism

There are lot of factors that go into how areas are zoned in addition to people deciding what sort of community they want to promote
Switching from single to multifamily units or high density rentals structures?

What's the water supply situation?
What impact will the reduction of open space have on the hydrologic cycle of the local area?
Are sewers present?
Does the local electrical grid have capacity?
Do schools have capacity?
Sanitation\Fire\Emergency Services?
Are the roads suitable for increased traffic?

So lets say they decide to rezone and find that schools, sewers, water and electrical will need to be built out and support expansion of a community through of rezoning.
Who pays for the new school construction?
Who pays for the infrastructure upgrades to handle capacity?
Who pays for the roadway redesign and expansion?
Are you saying current residents should pay for increased capacity for future residents meaning residents should pay a tax burden to allow for new residents to "have housing".
Usually the promise is that "the builder will do it" but based on experience, that shits end up hitting taxpayers

If town X is going to change rules to increase density, what impact does that have on neighboring towns? With greater demand on the electrical grid, potentially shared sewer systems and water (water table or piped in).


If all the real world details that matter allow density to increase....there are ideas out there

Tax the land

One radical idea to solve America’s housing crisis.

www.vox.com

 

[K1052]

Who pays for the new school construction?

I believe we have things called taxes that are often bonded against for this purpose.

Who pays for the infrastructure upgrades to handle capacity?

The relevant utilities who recoup capital investments through rates/fees. Though really this isn't generally a huge problem. Mostly talking about modest wastewater plant expansion and the like. Urban users are, by far, the most efficient power/water users that exist so the incremental increase is relatively small.

Who pays for the roadway redesign and expansion?

Developers often chip in for this but again, largely taxes.

Are you saying current residents should pay for increased capacity for future residents meaning residents should pay a tax burden to allow for new residents to "have housing".

Unless property taxes are capped desirable areas will see ever increasing tax burdens without dense construction. Doing nothing actually costs more in the long run.

Usually the promise is that "the builder will do it" but based on experience, that shits end up hitting taxpayers

Very much depends on the deal with the developer and how good the city is at enforcing it.

If town X is going to change rules to increase density, what impact does that have on neighboring towns? With greater demand on the electrical grid, potentially shared sewer systems and water (water table or piped in).

Suburban style tract housing is worse on all these in every measurable respect so treating that as the default option as a baseline seems like an error.

 

[Zorba]

I agree there should be planning for all this and not just a free for all. But I think locales should be restricted in how much of their jurisdiction can only be single family zoning, for example. This can be based on geographical rules. There need to be general rules that make the status quo we have now go away, without making it a free for all either.

Completely agree. It should also be very hard for people to prevent dense development on empty land down the street.

States should probably also enforce density near transportation corridors.

 

[fskimospy]

I believe we have things called taxes that are often bonded against for this purpose.



The relevant utilities who recoup capital investments through rates/fees. Though really this isn't generally a huge problem. Mostly talking about modest wastewater plant expansion and the like. Urban users are, by far, the most efficient power/water users that exist so the incremental increase is relatively small.



Developers often chip in for this but again, largely taxes.



Unless property taxes are capped desirable areas will see ever increasing tax burdens without dense construction. Doing nothing actually costs more in the long run.



Very much depends on the deal with the developer and how good the city is at enforcing it.



Suburban style tract housing is worse on all these in every measurable respect so treating that as the default option as a baseline seems like an error.

When people ask questions like this it makes me wonder how they think our towns and cities were built to begin with.

 

[brycejones]

Example in the heartland:

Overland Park City Council votes against Deer Creek apartment proposal

The Overland Park City Council approved a motion to deny the rezoning and special use permit applications for the Deer Creek apartment proposal during Monday's meeting, meaning the development will not move forward.

www.kshb.com