They are. We've been non-compliant for the last 5 cycles and as a result, we haven't been able to go after grant funding. This was a result of an inept City Manager who has since retired. Our current city manager is much more competent and realizes the predicament we're in so he's been in the Council's ear for the last 2 years about it. Since then, we've held several workshops around the city to educate citizens.
For a project as big as updating a City's General Plan, regardless of the City's population, you're going to want to have a few consultants doing the work. The educating will be built into whatever contracts we have with said consultants. I'm pretty much a one man show. I have one staff that handles permit intake but that's it. So I'll rely on the consultants to do most of the education heavy lifting in the form of workshops, but I'll be present every step of the way.
EDC is about how much you charge developers in order to provide new school for the new students, assuming the school boards would do enrolment projection or hire out.
Ha sorry, I'd never heard of it that way. We just call them impact fees. The school district(s) have their own formulas to charge per livable or commercial structure. I believe our district is $4.35/square foot. The fees they collect go into a district pot. I'm sure the City has other mechanisms to collect money for new schools, but this will be my first rodeo and I haven't learned those yet.
Some of the impact fees seem like red herrings, ways to create additional development roadblocks, and a way to keep the local government from raising everyone's property taxes to pay for stuff. This is especially considering that (at least in my area), total enrollment in many local schools is down from the peak of the mid-2000s, and that building a few hundred units doesn't mean you're immediately going to get a few hundred students all at the same grade levels moving in.
Well the school districts do the education funding bit and the city does the development charge for municipal services.
Yes, it's passed on, but what it really means is that the per unit costs go up, effectively raising the minimum price they'd have to sell at to cover the fees.
Who do you suggest pay for the land the new school needed for a new development if not the people moving there?
The benefits of educating children fall on all of society and community, so it's only reasonable for the community as a whole to pick up the tab through their taxes. New residents also pay taxes, so it's not like the municipalities are missing out there. And as I said, it's not like a single new development is going to overload a school system, and school enrollments are down, so existing schools should presumably have the physical space for additional students.
It's for the land, the school proper is from education tax. If you don't need a new school lot, obviously you don't charge for it.
You've said many times that people should be able to tear down SFH and put up multi family. You keep saying everything except SFH is banned in OKC because there are large chunks of SFH zoning, where the land has already been developed with SFH. (Which BTW only about 25% of OKC is SFH). The vast majority of empty land is zoned agricultural, which gets rezoned to whatever a developer wants when they want it. There are also large areas of developed SFH that have been rezoned to multi-family to encourage denser infill. Yet, housing prices shot way up even without any "bans."
www.upworthy.com
False. Humans should have a right to shelter but that does not mean a right to any one particular shelter of their choosing, regardless of the expense to others.Because housing is a human right and nobody should be forced to lose or be moved out of where they establish their lives, it is incumbent on the state to either provide the income to stay where you have established a life or the housing itself.
Completion is hate and hate is fear, the fear of insecurity that breeds selfishness and greed. In America we have all been conditioned by the desire to become rich to hate socialism. But in places where that has been resisted there is greater happiness:
The 'world's most livable city' has a proven, 100-year-old approach to affordable housing
More than 60% of this city of 1.9 million people lives in government-subsidized housing.
No one shelter is acquired at the expense of others. It was acquired by people struggling to rent their first apartment or buy their first house, which now, out of landlord greed or economic area advantage, has risen out of proportion to the rest of the nations sales and rental prices. This means that for some who have struggled to acquire a place to live, you will gladly push them our of what they worked hard to be able to acquire. Anybody paying taxes is shouldering the burden of people who do not have taxable income. They pay no taxes up to a certain amount. The point, however, is that once again you are unable to think outside the system that creates the problem you hope to fix. There is no reason other than fear that blinds us to government owned and subsidized housing. As I have said it is scientists not capitalistic chaos that should be building cities. Or just give people the money to buy or rent without a need for a job in areas of the country where homes and rents are low due to a lack of jobs. They will soon be engaged in extra ways to make money and bring up the quality of life in economically distressed areas. You just want the rats to win the rat race.
Cities should consider building/designating some infrastructure to support encampments. Put a wall/barrier to prevent the eyesore aspect of them. With some basic amenities, like an Address, Mailbox, basic plumbing you could help the Homeless not to descend into as much squalor. Some people may even be able to hold a Job and Work their way out.
Or we could just build housing of all different types instead of accepting mass outdoor encampments or trying to do some building by building central planning. (Though, we should also have more public restrooms).
I agree, except that they seem unable to. Or at least they haven't been. Instead, city after city just seems to eventually get tired of them then chase them out. Giving them a place to go on your terms and some specific infrastructure can improve the situation for everyone.
Cities are mass encampments so it is the degree of amenities where arguments center. A mass encampment with amenities for hygiene and warm shelter with some level of privacy would be better than sleeping under a bridge for many, I would suspect. But leaving that aside, where has your objection to central planning come from? As I have said, the problem of homelessness is, in my mind, not solvable within the current system. As long as solutions require a change in the consciousness and opinion of voters, why not push for the best in conscious evolution? A universal livable wage or government owned housing or both would have the greatest promise, seems to me.
Cities have hollowed out their governing capacity for decades, turning to contracting and the non-profit industrial complex, so I wouldn't expect cities to do much themselves. However, they can enable these older forms of housing through broad land use and permitting reforms.
Cities are mass encampments.
i mean it's moonbeam. what did you expect?
Holy shit I just busted out laughing when I read the last line, my dog looked up at me from the couch while we watch the Giants suck
I heard the San Diego mayor talking about establishing encampments this week, something Seattle did years ago. I think it's a good idea. But I started thinking, there are always a ton of abandoned warehouses around cities, seems like cities could buy some and fix them up a bit allow for nice/bigger encampments. Obviously this shouldn't be seen as the solution, but it's a lot better than people sleeping on the streets in 10 degree weather.
Facebook
Twitter