4 ms·

It's not any horrible business; the developer wants to build lower density housing than the lots are zoned for; condos vs an apartment building. Part of my posi

It's not any horrible business; the developer wants to build lower density housing than the lots are zoned for; condos vs an apartment building. Part of my position is definitely rooted in "well, you should have taken care of this before starting instead of trying to strong-arm the township later on" and not necessarily the zoning issue itself; although I'm always a fan of higher density housing.

jessaustin 8y ago
If this is lower-density housing replacing previously-existing-at-that-site higher-density housing, I see your point. It's my understanding that zoning typically enforces the opposite preference, so I'm still suspicious of zoning in general. However, if the previous use was substantially anything other than housing (which would be my guess with it being on "the main road"), this is crazy. There is no rational set of preferences that would prefer both non-housing and dense housing to less-dense housing. At some point the meddlers have to stop second-guessing the market. Of course, building permits are one thing and demolition permits are another. What municipality happily countenances the destruction of high-density housing without seeing the plans for what's coming next? That is even more crazy.
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  The lots were previously two smaller apartment buildings. I have a feeling the issue is a little more complex than _just_ the zoning, but the zoning appears to be a major issue from the news and comments in council. > here is no rational set of preferences that would prefer both non-housing and dense housing to less-dense housing. At some point the meddlers have to stop second-guessing the market. While I agree that anything productive is better than vacant lots, I do think we need some more dense housing, especially since there are already a couple of other apartment buildings, transit, and high demand for housing in that area. I also think that it's a bad precedence that a developer can just get the zoning changed by holding their breath and stamping their feet. That said, I often think that zoning laws are a bit to restrictive and could use a broad rethinking _in general_. I would personally like to see a mixed-use building, with retail on the first floor, but that's another issue entirely. > Of course, building permits are one thing and demolition permits are another. What municipality happily countenances the destruction of high-density housing without seeing the plans for what's coming next? That is even more crazy. We moved in after the buildings were demolished, but my understanding was that the buildings weren't in the best condition and may have been demolished by the previous owners. However, there has been a good deal of grading and site prep work going on when we moved in, and all work has ground to a halt since then.

jessaustin 8y ago

If this is lower-density housing replacing previously-existing-at-that-site higher-density housing, I see your point. It's my understanding that zoning typically enforces the opposite preference, so I'm still suspicious of zoning in general. However, if the previous use was substantially anything other than housing (which would be my guess with it being on "the main road"), this is crazy. There is no rational set of preferences that would prefer both non-housing and dense housing to less-dense housing. At some point the meddlers have to stop second-guessing the market. Of course, building permits are one thing and demolition permits are another. What municipality happily countenances the destruction of high-density housing without seeing the plans for what's coming next? That is even more crazy.

jimktrains2 8y ago
The lots were previously two smaller apartment buildings. I have a feeling the issue is a little more complex than _just_ the zoning, but the zoning appears to be a major issue from the news and comments in council. > here is no rational set of preferences that would prefer both non-housing and dense housing to less-dense housing. At some point the meddlers have to stop second-guessing the market. While I agree that anything productive is better than vacant lots, I do think we need some more dense housing, especially since there are already a couple of other apartment buildings, transit, and high demand for housing in that area. I also think that it's a bad precedence that a developer can just get the zoning changed by holding their breath and stamping their feet. That said, I often think that zoning laws are a bit to restrictive and could use a broad rethinking _in general_. I would personally like to see a mixed-use building, with retail on the first floor, but that's another issue entirely. > Of course, building permits are one thing and demolition permits are another. What municipality happily countenances the destruction of high-density housing without seeing the plans for what's coming next? That is even more crazy. We moved in after the buildings were demolished, but my understanding was that the buildings weren't in the best condition and may have been demolished by the previous owners. However, there has been a good deal of grading and site prep work going on when we moved in, and all work has ground to a halt since then.