3 ms·

Name of town= Dover, VT Two things you get wrong: * Zoning - it takes a 2/3 vote to change zoning; the laws are FAR more popular than you think. There is a m

by toss1 6y ago

Name of town= Dover, VT Two things you get wrong: * Zoning - it takes a 2/3 vote to change zoning; the laws are FAR more popular than you think. There is a movement in my state (Mass) to reduce that to 50% to take advantage of your bandwagon. * Greed: NO, it's the exact opposite. If I could get a variance, I could put a 2nd apt addition on my house and build a duplex in the front yard, and walk away with $millions for those 4 units (nevermind that I'd just trashed the protected wetlands that make up 2/3 of my yard, and the neighborhood). Every one of my neighbors in the whole town could do the same or better. But no one wants to, because we came for the quiet, the trails, the wildlife. It is the opposite of greed. * There are plenty of neighborhoods with very high population density and low cost housing within 5 miles of this 2ac-zoned town. But "nobody" wants to go there, because, well, the same reason I don't, dense-pack, pavement, noise, traffic, crime, no room to park+++, and plenty of housing IS being built there (a new 200+units 3.5mi away) Simply trashing the low-density areas that literally generations have invested in building is not a solution. I hear you like the Japanese model a lot, but I do not know enough about it to have an informed opinion. I do know that Japan is a very different society than ours, demographically, and culturally. You speak of "individual property rights", but I think that you would find that Japan constrains those much more tightly than in the US. To your specific question about Grandma Apt, Duplex/Triplex/Quad: A Grandma suite is typically allowed in these zoned towns with a variance, and sometimes restricted to bona-fide family members (not AirB&B suites). The Duplex/Triplex/Quad is specifically not allowed, BECAUSE HAS MASSIVE MEASURABLE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS on services burden, nuisance and safety. Every single issue changes: traffic, burden on school districts, water/sewer, road maintenance, crime. Of course, a single instance of a single duplex/triple/quad has a negligable effect, just like a single noisy, polluting factory. But, systemically change the rules so that those are everywhere, and everything changes. Taking one of the most bucolic 25 SqMi, towns with 8.5K people at 350/SqMi, and changing it to quads makes it a lot closer to 40K ppl, 1700/SqMi. Right now, everyone has an individual well and septic system. With that population, the wells and septic would fail and we'd require an entirely new centralized water & sewer system at a cost of $100s of millions. We already have one tiny such development, and it already has caused well failure for itself and the neighboring wells, requiring a expensive mitigation measures, digging temp hookups to adjacent town systems, etc. So, if you want to show up with several hundred million dollars to build out all that infrastructure, support 5X larger schools, 5X larger fire & police, road maintenance & buildout, and so forth, then maybe that makes sense. But don't act like "oh, just change the zoning because none of it matters" is an actual argument, because with that argument, you show that you literally do not know what you are talking about. Ignoring collateral effects does not make them disappear. Similarly, ignoring that it is 67% vote and not 51%, does not make you look knowlegable. And you talk about can't afford it in the city, and long commutes. Well, if that's the problem, you need to focus on higher density taller city buildings, and not on changing zoning in the places that geographically require long commutes. I can get on board with that. I think there is a real case in the cities for taller and higher efficiency apartments, like the tiny house movement, where it is fewer square feet, but just packed with fold-out storage and conveniences. I don't see how allowing such smaller units would change much about the city, BUT I know that I don't know enough about the topic to say (I've liven on Manhattan in a small apt, could have lived OK in a more efficient such unit, but I don't know enough abt the real situation there to want to impose such a rule change on them).

mikem170 6y ago
This is a big topic! I'm not for unfettered no-regulation zoning, I think we have established that. I'm going to ramble a bit, maybe get closer to where we disagree... You described enjoying the wildlife in your neighborhood. I recognize that it's a shame when a good thing becomes popular, and the influx of too many people ruin it. I've seen that happen with inner city neighborhoods (gentrifying) and beach communities (tourists). Sometimes this gets complicated. For example, the beach I mention is still there only because of the millions of dollars funded almost entirely by the state, county, and nearby city, properties owners enjoy federal flood insurance subsidized by everyone, and despite all that the people that live their think it is their private beach and use every legal trick in the book to keep others out, which seems wrong to me. The gentrified neighborhoods I've seen are part of a city, there's much interconnectedness and less friction to moving between neighborhoods, so it seems popular neighborhoods come and go over the decades, and that is going to happen no matter what, trying to stop that risks causing market distortions like in San Francisco, which hasn't been good for the character of the city. I wonder how long is reasonable to try to freeze a place in time. Going back several generations there were a lot less people in this country. People were a lot less mobile. Goods were produced closer to home, and the jobs that go along with that. The culture changes, faster now than ever. Maybe people now don't want to deal with other people? I don't know about trying to legislate good neighbors, that can only go so far without causing other problems. As an aside, my ideal rural small town would have a center with small apartment buildings in a shopping district, surrounded by a half mile of neighborhoods and greenways, surrounded by nature. This is what small-town Spain is like. Farmers commute from their apartments to their fields. The city streets are like an extension of ones livingroom, people able easily gather together because they are near to each other. Not saying I'd legislate that, but I'd like to see such things be possible. The regulations we have certainly don't incentive that. I'm in favor of letting a place slowly grow. I think overzealous regulations cause distortions like the popularity of air bnb, and developers who will only build luxury units due to the costs of working through the red-tape. There's not enough housing where people want it, close to the jobs. I blame suburban sprawl more than small towns. Who knows what work from home will do? Maybe everyone will move to small towns. Or maybe suburbs will decrease in value as they are abandoned for more vibrant city communities. You mention wells and infrastructure limitations, and I recognize that. I'm not for growth that would outpace genuine practicalities. I know enough about this to know that many of today's suburbs may not be able to sustain their infrastructure, the density is too low, there are too few people per mile of road, water, electric, and sewer to afford the upkeep, they already need to be subsidized by more dense areas. Cities are already subsiding suburbs. I believe that a significant factor in all this is that houses were not considered to be appreciating assets in the past. This has now become primarily a UK/US/CA/AU/NZ thing. Japan is not like that - houses there are no more considered an appreciating asset than cars are in the US. They build them to last 20 years, and build new ones frequently. Land is not so much an investment given that the population is declining and will continue to do so. I was glad when Trump raised the standard deduction, as a back-handed way of phasing out the mortgage interest deduction. I'd also like to see a land value tax - where a city taxes the land based on what the market wants to build on a piece of land, so someone expecting to keep their 5 acres near downtown has to pay dearly for that. I'd like to be sure that corporations don't get more involved in housing supply issues than they already are, they will lobby for more regulatory capture. The variance for a grandma cottage, or building out a duplex as an extension out the back of the house or raised roof, is subject to approval from folks who are primarily motivated by the bulk of their retirement saving being invested in their house. Most places simply won't approve anything like that. You have to convince everyone that it is in their best interests, and they don't care so much about you. The lengths some people go to can be despicable, their opposition being a thin veneer over their concerns over resale value, some of it not well reasoned. I'm not saying that is always the case, but it happens a lot. You mentioned supporting more density in cities, and I would agree. You also mentioned tiny houses, which I know a bit about. You might find it surprising that there are very very few populated places in this country where it is legal to live in one, and not a lot of unpopulated places, either. Some places like Austin are allowing them as accessory dwelling units, because Austin is one of those places that has priced out the people who made it an attractive place to live (Austin is about the music, and musicians can't afford to live there anymore), I think that it is Portland or somewhere nearby is experimenting with "pocket communities", where a cluster of tiny houses can be grouped together around a common space on a couple/few acres. There is a dying town in Texas that welcomes tiny houses on single family lots, desperate for citizens. There is a town in Florida that allows them on single family lots. NY has an interesting hunting cabin loophole. Outside of that there are counties in some western rural areas with minimum zoning laws, I've heard of that in Iowa (minimally they want to know that you are treating your sewage properly). And that's about it. But most people who want a tiny house would like to live near other people like themselves who are not so house-focused. It's difficult to check on this, one has to search each municipality individually, and read through their 100 page zoning documentations. The tiny house sales people don't tell their customers that eventually a neighbor will call the town zoning inspector who will promptly give them a notice to vacate. You can permit it as a shed and use it as a writer cabin, but not live in it. More and more localities are making it illegal to camp on your land, even rural land, or live in anything except a house made specifically as detailed in the codes (the inspectors don't know what to pass it otherwise), of a specific minimum square footage, with minimum parking and garage spaces, with limits on how many unrelated people can live there. It's stifling and hard to escape. I think it is good for a society to have room for people who want to do something different. EDIT: On the subject of democracy, and a majority versus super majority, voting for exceptions, etc. I don't believe that "there are more of us", no matter how many more, is a valid justification to impose on even a single person. Unless a decision is unanimous there should be morally valid reasons to impose on those who disagree, not just force of numbers. I stand by my remark that imposing on a minority with no other justification is tyranny. In the case of zoning there are relevant reasons for limitations to discuss. Like I said, it's a big topic, and this has been an interesting conversation. I'm still in favor of Japanese style zoning, allowing for measured growth, set at a federal level, eliminating some of the wrong incentives individual neighbors have to impose on others, and giving people more flexibility in other areas. I don't know if you have any other thoughts, or if we have reached an impasse?

by toss1 6y ago

mikem170 6y ago

This is a big topic! I'm not for unfettered no-regulation zoning, I think we have established that. I'm going to ramble a bit, maybe get closer to where we disagree... You described enjoying the wildlife in your neighborhood. I recognize that it's a shame when a good thing becomes popular, and the influx of too many people ruin it. I've seen that happen with inner city neighborhoods (gentrifying) and beach communities (tourists). Sometimes this gets complicated. For example, the beach I mention is still there only because of the millions of dollars funded almost entirely by the state, county, and nearby city, properties owners enjoy federal flood insurance subsidized by everyone, and despite all that the people that live their think it is their private beach and use every legal trick in the book to keep others out, which seems wrong to me. The gentrified neighborhoods I've seen are part of a city, there's much interconnectedness and less friction to moving between neighborhoods, so it seems popular neighborhoods come and go over the decades, and that is going to happen no matter what, trying to stop that risks causing market distortions like in San Francisco, which hasn't been good for the character of the city. I wonder how long is reasonable to try to freeze a place in time. Going back several generations there were a lot less people in this country. People were a lot less mobile. Goods were produced closer to home, and the jobs that go along with that. The culture changes, faster now than ever. Maybe people now don't want to deal with other people? I don't know about trying to legislate good neighbors, that can only go so far without causing other problems. As an aside, my ideal rural small town would have a center with small apartment buildings in a shopping district, surrounded by a half mile of neighborhoods and greenways, surrounded by nature. This is what small-town Spain is like. Farmers commute from their apartments to their fields. The city streets are like an extension of ones livingroom, people able easily gather together because they are near to each other. Not saying I'd legislate that, but I'd like to see such things be possible. The regulations we have certainly don't incentive that. I'm in favor of letting a place slowly grow. I think overzealous regulations cause distortions like the popularity of air bnb, and developers who will only build luxury units due to the costs of working through the red-tape. There's not enough housing where people want it, close to the jobs. I blame suburban sprawl more than small towns. Who knows what work from home will do? Maybe everyone will move to small towns. Or maybe suburbs will decrease in value as they are abandoned for more vibrant city communities. You mention wells and infrastructure limitations, and I recognize that. I'm not for growth that would outpace genuine practicalities. I know enough about this to know that many of today's suburbs may not be able to sustain their infrastructure, the density is too low, there are too few people per mile of road, water, electric, and sewer to afford the upkeep, they already need to be subsidized by more dense areas. Cities are already subsiding suburbs. I believe that a significant factor in all this is that houses were not considered to be appreciating assets in the past. This has now become primarily a UK/US/CA/AU/NZ thing. Japan is not like that - houses there are no more considered an appreciating asset than cars are in the US. They build them to last 20 years, and build new ones frequently. Land is not so much an investment given that the population is declining and will continue to do so. I was glad when Trump raised the standard deduction, as a back-handed way of phasing out the mortgage interest deduction. I'd also like to see a land value tax - where a city taxes the land based on what the market wants to build on a piece of land, so someone expecting to keep their 5 acres near downtown has to pay dearly for that. I'd like to be sure that corporations don't get more involved in housing supply issues than they already are, they will lobby for more regulatory capture. The variance for a grandma cottage, or building out a duplex as an extension out the back of the house or raised roof, is subject to approval from folks who are primarily motivated by the bulk of their retirement saving being invested in their house. Most places simply won't approve anything like that. You have to convince everyone that it is in their best interests, and they don't care so much about you. The lengths some people go to can be despicable, their opposition being a thin veneer over their concerns over resale value, some of it not well reasoned. I'm not saying that is always the case, but it happens a lot. You mentioned supporting more density in cities, and I would agree. You also mentioned tiny houses, which I know a bit about. You might find it surprising that there are very very few populated places in this country where it is legal to live in one, and not a lot of unpopulated places, either. Some places like Austin are allowing them as accessory dwelling units, because Austin is one of those places that has priced out the people who made it an attractive place to live (Austin is about the music, and musicians can't afford to live there anymore), I think that it is Portland or somewhere nearby is experimenting with "pocket communities", where a cluster of tiny houses can be grouped together around a common space on a couple/few acres. There is a dying town in Texas that welcomes tiny houses on single family lots, desperate for citizens. There is a town in Florida that allows them on single family lots. NY has an interesting hunting cabin loophole. Outside of that there are counties in some western rural areas with minimum zoning laws, I've heard of that in Iowa (minimally they want to know that you are treating your sewage properly). And that's about it. But most people who want a tiny house would like to live near other people like themselves who are not so house-focused. It's difficult to check on this, one has to search each municipality individually, and read through their 100 page zoning documentations. The tiny house sales people don't tell their customers that eventually a neighbor will call the town zoning inspector who will promptly give them a notice to vacate. You can permit it as a shed and use it as a writer cabin, but not live in it. More and more localities are making it illegal to camp on your land, even rural land, or live in anything except a house made specifically as detailed in the codes (the inspectors don't know what to pass it otherwise), of a specific minimum square footage, with minimum parking and garage spaces, with limits on how many unrelated people can live there. It's stifling and hard to escape. I think it is good for a society to have room for people who want to do something different. EDIT: On the subject of democracy, and a majority versus super majority, voting for exceptions, etc. I don't believe that "there are more of us", no matter how many more, is a valid justification to impose on even a single person. Unless a decision is unanimous there should be morally valid reasons to impose on those who disagree, not just force of numbers. I stand by my remark that imposing on a minority with no other justification is tyranny. In the case of zoning there are relevant reasons for limitations to discuss. Like I said, it's a big topic, and this has been an interesting conversation. I'm still in favor of Japanese style zoning, allowing for measured growth, set at a federal level, eliminating some of the wrong incentives individual neighbors have to impose on others, and giving people more flexibility in other areas. I don't know if you have any other thoughts, or if we have reached an impasse?