7 ms·

One way would be to buy people off: figure out the net economic benefit to the city, county or state of changing the rules, and as part of the rule change grant

by zeveb 7y ago

One way would be to buy people off: figure out the net economic benefit to the city, county or state of changing the rules, and as part of the rule change grant some fraction of those dollars to those who change in the way we want. I can see two bug problems with this, one practical and one political. The practical one is that estimating benefit is a black art — we really can't trust anyone, partisan or non-partisan, to make accurate predictions of future economic benefits (there's a secondary practical sub-problem, which is that such an estimate would be ripe for capture). The political problem is that we'd end up rewarding those who have been benefiting all these years (e.g. all the homeowners with unrealistically low property taxes for the last four decades).

ergothus 7y ago
I'm in Seattle, and my house only a couple of blocks away from a new light-rail transit station that is opening. My neighborhood has been rezoned for MRU (condos and apartments vs the single family homes that are here now). Plus, the city is widening the main road my house is on (overdue anyway, but will definitely be further needed with the traffic to the rail station). So we're either going to be bought by a developer or bought by the city, whichever comes first. It's been an exercise in details for me, because I generally am not a NIMBY-ist and support the sorts of changes that will be moving us from our home. My objections are not to the fact that this will happen...but there's been VAST uncertainty. * Will be forced out? If so, on what terms? (City is currently saying "relocation" rather than "property purchase", but only vague terms so far) * Will a developer offer us enough money to match the way real estate costs have soared in the area? Would this be a nice payout, a basically flat deal, or a net reduction in convenience/comfort? * And the real kicker...When? We've been told more info would be available in 6-24 months for...at least 2 years, probably 3. As it stands now, other than more certainty that staying is not an option, we still don't have any answers, certainly not enough to make plans for. I've let house repairs and maintenance lapse (overdue for a new roof and the electrical system is woefully inadequate. Drainage needs to be improved, and our fence has started to sag. A tree came down and we've just left it.) When reading these sorts of debates I always imagined it was just a matter of "suck it up and accept that you have to have some inconvenience for the greater good". In practice, I didn't realize it would be years of uncertainty. Not knowing where you will live and what your resources will be like has been a real source of stress for my wife and I. Having a house that is creeping into disrepair and not knowing if you will put up with it for a year or 5 years before it is all torn down is a big pain. It puts another light on why someone might push back. I'm still in favor of the greater good - but the cost has not been "I have to move". It's been much more.
- davidw 7y ago
  As someone very much in the YIMBY camp, I'd love for housing to be kind of 'boring' and 'steady'. I mean, it'd be good if prices in some places (the bay area) dropped a lot, but by and large it'd be nice if they became fairly steady and predictable so that people could move around without playing the 'but what will it be worth tomorrow?' game. Hope you get some certainty for your own situation soon.
- sologoub 7y ago
  Sorry to hear about your situation and impacts! Definitely sounds like a lot of stress! Is the uncertainty because of eminent domain that the city is planning to use to force the relocation? If that’s the case, I don’t know that all that many on here are arguing in favor of the government forced sale. It doesn’t sound like you’d be forced to sell because of the potential appreciation in property alone, as that would be somewhat in your control.
  - ergothus 7y ago
    It's a split. There's the eminent domain question from the city - they need space for the road, which would eat my front yard and put traffic a few feet from the front door. There are various kinds of eminent domain (some other comments have discussed the more speculative kind), but this is the more straightfoward "take your land, give you something of theoretical equal value, and use your land for city improvement". The uncertainty there comes in: - If it would happen at all. The city (technically Shoreline, not Seattle, but I'm literally across the street from Seattle) can't afford it, but it got federal funding to make a plan. Following the plan would take another infusion of cash from somewhere, but there are potential sources. Potential. Or maybe the street will just get more congested because they can't afford to fix it. - If it does happen, what form will it take? They are now talking "relocation", which I imagine would be easier on the city budget since they could use properties they own that have value on paper without having to find a way to make that value "real". But info is scarce, and until there's a real offer it will continue to be scarce. If it was an outright purchase there would still be questions (how much, when, would there be an interim where we can live/rent while finding a new home) and with the relocation it gets more uncertain (where, when, etc) Then there's the flip side of the coin: If the city doesn't use eminent domain, or does so in a way that leaves the property usable (perhaps my front yard is halved), there's still the chance where I'm not "forced" to leave, but I may be stupid not do. My neighbors and I are considering selling to a developer as a block. Developers, sure to be able to build a profitable apartment/condo on what was multiple single lots, could pay a decent amount per sq/ft. I have no idea what numbers to trust, but the middle of the range of what I've heard being speculated about could very well put us in the "dumb not to take it". I like my house, and it is convenient and awesomely close to the light rail when it opens, but I'm not so attached I wouldn't sell, particularly if traffic on the street will get worse and louder (and possibly closer). In such a case, the house itself is meaningless, they just want the land. But this is also fully speculative. I don't know if there will be real offers, if there are I don't know what they would be, and I don't know how the _possible_ eminent domain would impact it. And there's no real way to get answers to those questions without waiting out the clock. Which is what we've been doing. For years, and probably another year or two to go.
peteey 7y ago
Being treated equally may seem like a punishment when you've become accustomed to special privilege. Suppose property owners have been benefiting from the tax shelters for 10 years. That was the payoff. Don't dally around asking what their next hand out should be. They've been riding the gravy train for years. Now the perks need to end. Welcome to a level playing field.
- zeveb 7y ago
  Sure, but then they will vote against you, and you won't get your way, because they are more civically-active than you, or out-number you, or whatever. Do you want to be right, or do you want to get your way? There's also an issue of fairness, in that people made choices based on the deals they were offered under the rules which were active at the time.
asdff 7y ago
-1) rip out street parking or a lane on all arterial roads and install a bollarded buss lane. 0) remove single family zoning in the city of los angeles and remove height restrictions on parcels a 10 min walk to a metro station 1) enact an actual property tax to fund transit 2) 1% sales tax on cars and luxury goods to fund transit 3) watch the egregiously inflated housing prices tumble to rational levels 4) buy property and build elevated rail above 5) enjoy the lack of smog

by zeveb 7y ago

ergothus 7y ago

I'm in Seattle, and my house only a couple of blocks away from a new light-rail transit station that is opening. My neighborhood has been rezoned for MRU (condos and apartments vs the single family homes that are here now). Plus, the city is widening the main road my house is on (overdue anyway, but will definitely be further needed with the traffic to the rail station). So we're either going to be bought by a developer or bought by the city, whichever comes first. It's been an exercise in details for me, because I generally am not a NIMBY-ist and support the sorts of changes that will be moving us from our home. My objections are not to the fact that this will happen...but there's been VAST uncertainty. * Will be forced out? If so, on what terms? (City is currently saying "relocation" rather than "property purchase", but only vague terms so far) * Will a developer offer us enough money to match the way real estate costs have soared in the area? Would this be a nice payout, a basically flat deal, or a net reduction in convenience/comfort? * And the real kicker...When? We've been told more info would be available in 6-24 months for...at least 2 years, probably 3. As it stands now, other than more certainty that staying is not an option, we still don't have any answers, certainly not enough to make plans for. I've let house repairs and maintenance lapse (overdue for a new roof and the electrical system is woefully inadequate. Drainage needs to be improved, and our fence has started to sag. A tree came down and we've just left it.) When reading these sorts of debates I always imagined it was just a matter of "suck it up and accept that you have to have some inconvenience for the greater good". In practice, I didn't realize it would be years of uncertainty. Not knowing where you will live and what your resources will be like has been a real source of stress for my wife and I. Having a house that is creeping into disrepair and not knowing if you will put up with it for a year or 5 years before it is all torn down is a big pain. It puts another light on why someone might push back. I'm still in favor of the greater good - but the cost has not been "I have to move". It's been much more.

davidw 7y ago
As someone very much in the YIMBY camp, I'd love for housing to be kind of 'boring' and 'steady'. I mean, it'd be good if prices in some places (the bay area) dropped a lot, but by and large it'd be nice if they became fairly steady and predictable so that people could move around without playing the 'but what will it be worth tomorrow?' game. Hope you get some certainty for your own situation soon.
sologoub 7y ago
Sorry to hear about your situation and impacts! Definitely sounds like a lot of stress! Is the uncertainty because of eminent domain that the city is planning to use to force the relocation? If that’s the case, I don’t know that all that many on here are arguing in favor of the government forced sale. It doesn’t sound like you’d be forced to sell because of the potential appreciation in property alone, as that would be somewhat in your control.
- ergothus 7y ago
  It's a split. There's the eminent domain question from the city - they need space for the road, which would eat my front yard and put traffic a few feet from the front door. There are various kinds of eminent domain (some other comments have discussed the more speculative kind), but this is the more straightfoward "take your land, give you something of theoretical equal value, and use your land for city improvement". The uncertainty there comes in: - If it would happen at all. The city (technically Shoreline, not Seattle, but I'm literally across the street from Seattle) can't afford it, but it got federal funding to make a plan. Following the plan would take another infusion of cash from somewhere, but there are potential sources. Potential. Or maybe the street will just get more congested because they can't afford to fix it. - If it does happen, what form will it take? They are now talking "relocation", which I imagine would be easier on the city budget since they could use properties they own that have value on paper without having to find a way to make that value "real". But info is scarce, and until there's a real offer it will continue to be scarce. If it was an outright purchase there would still be questions (how much, when, would there be an interim where we can live/rent while finding a new home) and with the relocation it gets more uncertain (where, when, etc) Then there's the flip side of the coin: If the city doesn't use eminent domain, or does so in a way that leaves the property usable (perhaps my front yard is halved), there's still the chance where I'm not "forced" to leave, but I may be stupid not do. My neighbors and I are considering selling to a developer as a block. Developers, sure to be able to build a profitable apartment/condo on what was multiple single lots, could pay a decent amount per sq/ft. I have no idea what numbers to trust, but the middle of the range of what I've heard being speculated about could very well put us in the "dumb not to take it". I like my house, and it is convenient and awesomely close to the light rail when it opens, but I'm not so attached I wouldn't sell, particularly if traffic on the street will get worse and louder (and possibly closer). In such a case, the house itself is meaningless, they just want the land. But this is also fully speculative. I don't know if there will be real offers, if there are I don't know what they would be, and I don't know how the _possible_ eminent domain would impact it. And there's no real way to get answers to those questions without waiting out the clock. Which is what we've been doing. For years, and probably another year or two to go.

peteey 7y ago

Being treated equally may seem like a punishment when you've become accustomed to special privilege. Suppose property owners have been benefiting from the tax shelters for 10 years. That was the payoff. Don't dally around asking what their next hand out should be. They've been riding the gravy train for years. Now the perks need to end. Welcome to a level playing field.

zeveb 7y ago
Sure, but then they will vote against you, and you won't get your way, because they are more civically-active than you, or out-number you, or whatever. Do you want to be right, or do you want to get your way? There's also an issue of fairness, in that people made choices based on the deals they were offered under the rules which were active at the time.

asdff 7y ago

-1) rip out street parking or a lane on all arterial roads and install a bollarded buss lane. 0) remove single family zoning in the city of los angeles and remove height restrictions on parcels a 10 min walk to a metro station 1) enact an actual property tax to fund transit 2) 1% sales tax on cars and luxury goods to fund transit 3) watch the egregiously inflated housing prices tumble to rational levels 4) buy property and build elevated rail above 5) enjoy the lack of smog