6 ms·

Also, hold those developers responsible for fulfilling their obligations. I am, perhaps, a bit of NIMBY. I'm willing to accept that some of my concerns are not

Also, hold those developers responsible for fulfilling their obligations. I am, perhaps, a bit of NIMBY. I'm willing to accept that some of my concerns are not in the public interest. I don't want an apartment building in my neighborhood because of the impacts on street parking, traffic, noise, etc. All of those things negatively affect me, and so I take a lot of convincing. But another issue is that developers have a history of claiming they will ameliorate these issues by improving infrastructure, such as adding underground parking, upgrading sewers, building sound barriers, etc and then do not. Or they exploit loopholes to avoid their obligations. An example where I live is that new developments are required to have sidewalks. Developers simply tell homeowners they are required to build the sidewalk within 2 years which, of course, doesn't happen. 5 years later, the city goes in an builds them and applies specials to the home and everyone is unhappy except the developer, who walked away from the project long ago. Sometimes its seems that cities are so beholden to developers that they can get away with anything.

rayiner 8y ago
It’s the government’s job to ensure adequate infrastructure. The people that buy from the developer will be paying for their proportionate share of that new infrastructure with taxes. Forcing the developer to cover the costs of infrastructure is just a sneaky way to shift the tax burden from existing residents to new residents.
- singingboyo 8y ago
  The maintenance cost of existing infrastructure is paid for by existing residents. It seems sensible to have the up-front cost of adding new infrastructure covered by new residents/developers (who are later considered existing residents covering maintenance for the new, now-existing infrastructure). Why would existing residents ever agree to new development if they have to pay for it? (Either through taxes to upgrade infrastructure, or by needing to deal with insufficient infrastructure that doesn't get improved as needed) Maybe instead of directly performing the upgrades, developers should be paying extra to the government (either lump sum, or over N years) because in theory the government can then do a few large upgrades rather than developers doing many small ones, but the cost of new capacity should really be the responsibility of the people who need it (developers/new residents).
  - rayiner 8y ago
    That’s not how taxes work. People pay a proportionate share of the services everyone agrees the community should have, not for services they use specifically. By you reasoning, new residents shouldnt have to pay to replace infrastructure old residents wore out, or to pay pensions for teachers that retired before they moved their kids into the local school. As to why people would agree to new development—they shouldn’t be allowed to veto it. They should get to decide what level of infrastructure the government will provide to the community. But omce they do that, theh shouldn’t get to discriminate against new residents by forcing those residents to pay a disproportionate share of the common infrastructure.
    - stinkytaco 8y ago
      Who is "everybody" in this scenario? Who gets to decide who agrees on what the level is? Existing residents? The state? The federal government? At some point the decision making authority needs to exist. Part of the problem of this proposal is that you are treating everyone equally in this scenario, but not all development is equal. A single family dwelling creates a different impact than an apartment building. It requires different sewers, road frontage and utilities. Its cost is different. What you are proposing encourages expensive development. If a person pays the same whether they build high density housing or a McMansion, what motivation is there to actually solve the housing problem? If residents can't veto development, and communities can't put limits on it, you're left with very few tools to actually resolve important issues like urban sprawl that got us into this mess in the first place. If you propose levying different taxes based on the type of development, then we're back around to where we started: shifting the burden of infrastructure to the owners and developers that are utilizing it. Additionally, I would argue that's not how taxes work at all. There are many "use" based taxes: utilities, sales tax, special assessments, gas tax, toll roads, and so on. EDIT: Additionally, when you say "proportionate share", I think many would argue that's what charging developers and new residents for new infrastructure is. They benefit from the new infrastructure, thus they pay for it.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        > Who is "everybody" in this scenario? Everyone that comprises the tax base that pays for the relevant infrastructure. In this case, state and local government. > A single family dwelling creates a different impact than an apartment building. It requires different sewers, road frontage and utilities. Its cost is different. What you are proposing encourages expensive development. On a per tax unit basis, apartments create much lower infrastructure cost that single family homes. An condo building with 100 units requires more sewer and road infrastructure than a single family home. But it’s got 100x the number of taxable units, and requires far less than 100x the infrastructure of a single family home. > If a person pays the same whether they build high density housing or a McMansion, what motivation is there to actually solve the housing problem? There is a natural incentive to build high density units in response to rising real estate prices, because you can make much more revenue per unit land. The market, unsurprisingly, provides the right incentives. > If residents can't veto development, and communities can't put limits on it, you're left with very few tools to actually resolve important issues like urban sprawl that got us into this mess in the first place. Urban sprawl was caused by existing residents legally requiring sprawl. For example, in my county, it’s illegal to build a house in most areas on less than 1/3 of an acre. I live in a pre-zoning law neighborhood where the lots are 1/5 that size. Even with the variances grandfathered in, a local developer had to fight for years to build three new houses conforming to the existing lot plan. > Additionally, I would argue that's not how taxes work at all. There are many "use" based taxes: utilities, sales tax, special assessments, gas tax, toll roads, and so on. Having a use-based tax that everyone pays is quite different than forcing new residents to foot the entire bill for shared infrastructure. > EDIT: Additionally, when you say "proportionate share", I think many would argue that's what charging developers and new residents for new infrastructure is. They benefit from the new infrastructure, thus they pay for it. Those people would be wrong. For example, people in my dense pre-zoning neighborhood pay our “proportionate share” for shared sewer mains and county roads. But 50 houses in my neighborhood pay about the same in taxes as 50 houses in a less dense area, but it cost the county way less to build sewer and road infrastructure to our 50 houses than to 50 houses in a less dense area. For better or worse, our tax system is not built on paying proportionate to use. If it were, your point might be valid, but as I said, then new residents would get to avoid paying for a lot of other things they never used. If you charged new residents for the new infrastructure they require, then it’s not fair to make them pay for teachers and other public employees that retired before the new residents moved there. I’d take that deal in a heartbeat.
- zdragnar 8y ago
  Isn't this the crux of the issue? Why would current tax payers volunteer to pay more so that more people can come into their neighborhood, devaluing their property by increasing noise, light and chemical pollution? It's curious to me that so many people complain about gentrification in terms of destroying the nature of an existing community, but then we also have so many complaints about zoning laws that are designed to protect the visible characteristics of communities.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    > Why would current tax payers volunteer to pay more so that more people can come into their neighborhood, devaluing their property by increasing noise, light and chemical pollution? Rayiner's point is that current tax payers won't pay more, because new residents result in a higher tax base in the first place. In California with Prop 13 and widespread rent control, this is especially true.
    - crzwdjk 8y ago
      In California with Prop 13, the current tax payers' property tax rates are well below those of newcomers regardless. So they have no incentive to change things, since their taxes stay at the same low rate either way, whereas in a normal state, I have an incentive to get as much new development in my town as possible to add to the tax base, especially if that new development is stuff that doesn't require lots of expensive infrastructure or tax subsidies.
  - mertd 8y ago
    I don't get the density causes devaluation argument. A plot of land in a high density area is a lot more valuable than in a low density area. So from a purely economic standpoint one should welcome density. I feel like in California this devaluation argument is not really about economics but rather a proxy for making a case that might not be too politically correct when laid out as it is.
    - nitrogen 8y ago
      But a high or medium density plot in a low density area lowers the value of low density plots around it. A house on a quiet street with a decent view might be worth X, but the same house becomes worth X/2 if a high-traffic, view-blocking apartment complex is built next door.
- stinkytaco 8y ago
  Not sneaky at all, but rather by design. Why should existing residents pay for new residents to move in? What benefit are new residents to them? In fact, many towns don't put the burden of maintenance on existing residents either, but rather make it up in special assessments and utilities.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    Won’t the new residents pay way more than the old ones because of prop 13? I don’t see how there’s any way the new residents don’t end up paying more than the old ones.
    - mmt 8y ago
      Maybe more, but is it enough more? Remember that prop 13 doesn't completely freeze property taxes, nor does it eliminate various special assessments and parcel taxes and other non-percentage-of-value taxes.
- jfoutz 8y ago
  I lived in the sticks. To connect to a utility, you pay the initial cost. Stuff like utility poles or pipes. The maintenance is covered by the community. Perhaps it’s not like that everywhere. But from that background, it seems reasonable for the developer to pay for upgrades.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    I’m not talking about utility hookups, which developers pay. I’m talking about the practice of forcing developers to pay for upgrades to shared infrastructure in order to secure approval for their projects.
    - jfoutz 8y ago
      I understand your point. But if a pipe only carries 10 gal/min and the new building requires 20, it’s on the developers for the upgrade. And to clarify, by new installations I mean paying for half a mile or more of infrastructure. Not a hookup, but running new stuff for a good distance.
pcwalton 8y ago
Maybe in other places, but in California we've been massively underproducing homes by any measure. There's no danger of California cities becoming "beholden to developers" anytime soon.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Those two ideas aren't really incompatible.
  - crzwdjk 8y ago
    Expanding on this a little, the developers who can survive in the current restricted environment are not going to be happy about getting more competition, and are likely to favor a relatively restricted environment like the one that they currently operate in. The benefits of a looser regulatory environment would accrue to all the people who might want to be developers but can't, due to the high bureaucratic hurdles that only the large corporations or the truly dedicated can overcome.
ryanobjc 8y ago
I also agree with the basic premise: new development doesn’t build livable neighborhoods. Consider San Francisco’s mission bay. UCSF is a bad neighbor - they have large unfriendly buildings that create a dangerous street environment. The adjacent residential isn’t a lot better. Lots of parking garages, no effective street level housing, no effective businesses. There is no legitimate reasons for someone to be hanging around after dark. I also lived near the Castro and lived thru 5 large apartment infill developments. Only one produced useful ground level business (Whole Foods). All the others had their retail space sit empty for years, Years! This is in an existing neighborhood that has a strong history of mixed retail and residential. Not to mention that during the construction (1-3 years depending) the sites are the very definition of bad neighbors. They suck away street parking, they cause noise and air pollution (new concrete work causes plenty of air pollution), make it difficult to get around the area. As an existing resident the upsides are minimal (no effective new business, the new ones tend to be expensive, doesn’t cater to existing residents) and the downsides are guaranteed.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  Speak for yourself. I just purchased Mission Bay adjacent property and the neighborhood is fine. The park in particular is pleasant and well-maintained, and that new public library branch is a very nice addition to the city. UCSF is anything but "dangerous": I have no idea where you got that notion from. And retail is just tough in the modern environment. If there's someone to blame for the woes of retail, it's Amazon. Not the developers for catering to the whims of the Planning Commission. I'm excited to see the new Pier 70 development, and I wouldn't have bought if I didn't think the new development was going to be anything other than a nice way to make the central waterfront accessible again and some sorely needed housing. How could I be a NIMBY when the area doesn't even have a grocery store yet? You know what isn't a livable neighborhood? The Sunset, with its rows and rows of ticky-tackies with ugly little yards in the back. Give me Mission Bay over that pastel low-rise concrete jungle any day of the week.
  - DrScump 8y ago
    I hope you've obtained earthquake insurance. Mission Bay is on extremely low-quality fill. Also, be prepared for your neighborhood to be overrun on event nights at the new Warriors building and 83+ Giants home games each year. April and May will include both Warriors and Giants games simultaneously at times. Get home early, or stay out late.

rayiner 8y ago

It’s the government’s job to ensure adequate infrastructure. The people that buy from the developer will be paying for their proportionate share of that new infrastructure with taxes. Forcing the developer to cover the costs of infrastructure is just a sneaky way to shift the tax burden from existing residents to new residents.

singingboyo 8y ago
The maintenance cost of existing infrastructure is paid for by existing residents. It seems sensible to have the up-front cost of adding new infrastructure covered by new residents/developers (who are later considered existing residents covering maintenance for the new, now-existing infrastructure). Why would existing residents ever agree to new development if they have to pay for it? (Either through taxes to upgrade infrastructure, or by needing to deal with insufficient infrastructure that doesn't get improved as needed) Maybe instead of directly performing the upgrades, developers should be paying extra to the government (either lump sum, or over N years) because in theory the government can then do a few large upgrades rather than developers doing many small ones, but the cost of new capacity should really be the responsibility of the people who need it (developers/new residents).
- rayiner 8y ago
  That’s not how taxes work. People pay a proportionate share of the services everyone agrees the community should have, not for services they use specifically. By you reasoning, new residents shouldnt have to pay to replace infrastructure old residents wore out, or to pay pensions for teachers that retired before they moved their kids into the local school. As to why people would agree to new development—they shouldn’t be allowed to veto it. They should get to decide what level of infrastructure the government will provide to the community. But omce they do that, theh shouldn’t get to discriminate against new residents by forcing those residents to pay a disproportionate share of the common infrastructure.
  - stinkytaco 8y ago
    Who is "everybody" in this scenario? Who gets to decide who agrees on what the level is? Existing residents? The state? The federal government? At some point the decision making authority needs to exist. Part of the problem of this proposal is that you are treating everyone equally in this scenario, but not all development is equal. A single family dwelling creates a different impact than an apartment building. It requires different sewers, road frontage and utilities. Its cost is different. What you are proposing encourages expensive development. If a person pays the same whether they build high density housing or a McMansion, what motivation is there to actually solve the housing problem? If residents can't veto development, and communities can't put limits on it, you're left with very few tools to actually resolve important issues like urban sprawl that got us into this mess in the first place. If you propose levying different taxes based on the type of development, then we're back around to where we started: shifting the burden of infrastructure to the owners and developers that are utilizing it. Additionally, I would argue that's not how taxes work at all. There are many "use" based taxes: utilities, sales tax, special assessments, gas tax, toll roads, and so on. EDIT: Additionally, when you say "proportionate share", I think many would argue that's what charging developers and new residents for new infrastructure is. They benefit from the new infrastructure, thus they pay for it.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > Who is "everybody" in this scenario? Everyone that comprises the tax base that pays for the relevant infrastructure. In this case, state and local government. > A single family dwelling creates a different impact than an apartment building. It requires different sewers, road frontage and utilities. Its cost is different. What you are proposing encourages expensive development. On a per tax unit basis, apartments create much lower infrastructure cost that single family homes. An condo building with 100 units requires more sewer and road infrastructure than a single family home. But it’s got 100x the number of taxable units, and requires far less than 100x the infrastructure of a single family home. > If a person pays the same whether they build high density housing or a McMansion, what motivation is there to actually solve the housing problem? There is a natural incentive to build high density units in response to rising real estate prices, because you can make much more revenue per unit land. The market, unsurprisingly, provides the right incentives. > If residents can't veto development, and communities can't put limits on it, you're left with very few tools to actually resolve important issues like urban sprawl that got us into this mess in the first place. Urban sprawl was caused by existing residents legally requiring sprawl. For example, in my county, it’s illegal to build a house in most areas on less than 1/3 of an acre. I live in a pre-zoning law neighborhood where the lots are 1/5 that size. Even with the variances grandfathered in, a local developer had to fight for years to build three new houses conforming to the existing lot plan. > Additionally, I would argue that's not how taxes work at all. There are many "use" based taxes: utilities, sales tax, special assessments, gas tax, toll roads, and so on. Having a use-based tax that everyone pays is quite different than forcing new residents to foot the entire bill for shared infrastructure. > EDIT: Additionally, when you say "proportionate share", I think many would argue that's what charging developers and new residents for new infrastructure is. They benefit from the new infrastructure, thus they pay for it. Those people would be wrong. For example, people in my dense pre-zoning neighborhood pay our “proportionate share” for shared sewer mains and county roads. But 50 houses in my neighborhood pay about the same in taxes as 50 houses in a less dense area, but it cost the county way less to build sewer and road infrastructure to our 50 houses than to 50 houses in a less dense area. For better or worse, our tax system is not built on paying proportionate to use. If it were, your point might be valid, but as I said, then new residents would get to avoid paying for a lot of other things they never used. If you charged new residents for the new infrastructure they require, then it’s not fair to make them pay for teachers and other public employees that retired before the new residents moved there. I’d take that deal in a heartbeat.
zdragnar 8y ago
Isn't this the crux of the issue? Why would current tax payers volunteer to pay more so that more people can come into their neighborhood, devaluing their property by increasing noise, light and chemical pollution? It's curious to me that so many people complain about gentrification in terms of destroying the nature of an existing community, but then we also have so many complaints about zoning laws that are designed to protect the visible characteristics of communities.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  > Why would current tax payers volunteer to pay more so that more people can come into their neighborhood, devaluing their property by increasing noise, light and chemical pollution? Rayiner's point is that current tax payers won't pay more, because new residents result in a higher tax base in the first place. In California with Prop 13 and widespread rent control, this is especially true.
  - crzwdjk 8y ago
    In California with Prop 13, the current tax payers' property tax rates are well below those of newcomers regardless. So they have no incentive to change things, since their taxes stay at the same low rate either way, whereas in a normal state, I have an incentive to get as much new development in my town as possible to add to the tax base, especially if that new development is stuff that doesn't require lots of expensive infrastructure or tax subsidies.
- mertd 8y ago
  I don't get the density causes devaluation argument. A plot of land in a high density area is a lot more valuable than in a low density area. So from a purely economic standpoint one should welcome density. I feel like in California this devaluation argument is not really about economics but rather a proxy for making a case that might not be too politically correct when laid out as it is.
  - nitrogen 8y ago
    But a high or medium density plot in a low density area lowers the value of low density plots around it. A house on a quiet street with a decent view might be worth X, but the same house becomes worth X/2 if a high-traffic, view-blocking apartment complex is built next door.
stinkytaco 8y ago
Not sneaky at all, but rather by design. Why should existing residents pay for new residents to move in? What benefit are new residents to them? In fact, many towns don't put the burden of maintenance on existing residents either, but rather make it up in special assessments and utilities.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  Won’t the new residents pay way more than the old ones because of prop 13? I don’t see how there’s any way the new residents don’t end up paying more than the old ones.
  - mmt 8y ago
    Maybe more, but is it enough more? Remember that prop 13 doesn't completely freeze property taxes, nor does it eliminate various special assessments and parcel taxes and other non-percentage-of-value taxes.
jfoutz 8y ago
I lived in the sticks. To connect to a utility, you pay the initial cost. Stuff like utility poles or pipes. The maintenance is covered by the community. Perhaps it’s not like that everywhere. But from that background, it seems reasonable for the developer to pay for upgrades.
- rayiner 8y ago
  I’m not talking about utility hookups, which developers pay. I’m talking about the practice of forcing developers to pay for upgrades to shared infrastructure in order to secure approval for their projects.
  - jfoutz 8y ago
    I understand your point. But if a pipe only carries 10 gal/min and the new building requires 20, it’s on the developers for the upgrade. And to clarify, by new installations I mean paying for half a mile or more of infrastructure. Not a hookup, but running new stuff for a good distance.

pcwalton 8y ago

Maybe in other places, but in California we've been massively underproducing homes by any measure. There's no danger of California cities becoming "beholden to developers" anytime soon.

emodendroket 8y ago
Those two ideas aren't really incompatible.
- crzwdjk 8y ago
  Expanding on this a little, the developers who can survive in the current restricted environment are not going to be happy about getting more competition, and are likely to favor a relatively restricted environment like the one that they currently operate in. The benefits of a looser regulatory environment would accrue to all the people who might want to be developers but can't, due to the high bureaucratic hurdles that only the large corporations or the truly dedicated can overcome.

ryanobjc 8y ago

I also agree with the basic premise: new development doesn’t build livable neighborhoods. Consider San Francisco’s mission bay. UCSF is a bad neighbor - they have large unfriendly buildings that create a dangerous street environment. The adjacent residential isn’t a lot better. Lots of parking garages, no effective street level housing, no effective businesses. There is no legitimate reasons for someone to be hanging around after dark. I also lived near the Castro and lived thru 5 large apartment infill developments. Only one produced useful ground level business (Whole Foods). All the others had their retail space sit empty for years, Years! This is in an existing neighborhood that has a strong history of mixed retail and residential. Not to mention that during the construction (1-3 years depending) the sites are the very definition of bad neighbors. They suck away street parking, they cause noise and air pollution (new concrete work causes plenty of air pollution), make it difficult to get around the area. As an existing resident the upsides are minimal (no effective new business, the new ones tend to be expensive, doesn’t cater to existing residents) and the downsides are guaranteed.

pcwalton 8y ago
Speak for yourself. I just purchased Mission Bay adjacent property and the neighborhood is fine. The park in particular is pleasant and well-maintained, and that new public library branch is a very nice addition to the city. UCSF is anything but "dangerous": I have no idea where you got that notion from. And retail is just tough in the modern environment. If there's someone to blame for the woes of retail, it's Amazon. Not the developers for catering to the whims of the Planning Commission. I'm excited to see the new Pier 70 development, and I wouldn't have bought if I didn't think the new development was going to be anything other than a nice way to make the central waterfront accessible again and some sorely needed housing. How could I be a NIMBY when the area doesn't even have a grocery store yet? You know what isn't a livable neighborhood? The Sunset, with its rows and rows of ticky-tackies with ugly little yards in the back. Give me Mission Bay over that pastel low-rise concrete jungle any day of the week.
- DrScump 8y ago
  I hope you've obtained earthquake insurance. Mission Bay is on extremely low-quality fill. Also, be prepared for your neighborhood to be overrun on event nights at the new Warriors building and 83+ Giants home games each year. April and May will include both Warriors and Giants games simultaneously at times. Get home early, or stay out late.