4 ms·

I think you are leaping to a lot of conclusions not in evidence. There is a big difference between "centrally planning a city down to the micro-management level

by TimPC 4y ago

I think you are leaping to a lot of conclusions not in evidence. There is a big difference between "centrally planning a city down to the micro-management level" and overriding any ability for a municipality to assert what it feels is needed in a development. Negative externalities are a very real thing and allowing developers to have arbitrarily many of them at arbitrarily bad levels is not the only alternative to complete and total central planning. Believe it or not there are reasonable middle grounds that allow some influence on developments from central planning to limit negative externalities while also listening to market forces. My beliefs align somewhere in this middle ground.

kspacewalk2 4y ago
>I think you are leaping to a lot of conclusions not in evidence. There is a big difference between "centrally planning a city down to the micro-management level" and overriding any ability for a municipality to assert what it feels is needed in a development. Not really, if the municipality is in fact willing to centrally plan a city down to the micro-management level, and a different level of government wants to prevent it from happening. Some overriding is gonna have to happen here. >Negative externalities are a very real thing Indeed. Example: artificially embalming swathes of single-family neighbourhoods in time, right next to recently built public transit we're sinking billions into building. So let's not be selective about negative externalities and consider the ones created or exacerbated by NIMBY-driven urban planning, too. >allowing developers to have arbitrarily many of them at arbitrarily bad levels is not the only alternative to complete and total central planning. Believe it or not there are reasonable middle grounds that allow some influence on developments from central planning to limit negative externalities while also listening to market forces. My beliefs align somewhere in this middle ground. Sure. I too am somewhere between allowing toxic smelters next door to kindergartens and Soviet-style central planning where government owns all and builds all. Everyone's gonna align themselves somewhere in this middle ground between two contrived and straw-man extremes, all NIMBYs included. The whole debate is about where in this middle ground we ought to be. Forgive my skepticism, it's just that I've heard this middle-ground line often. And often, this is simply a rhetorical cop-out and a prelude to killing off any meaningful changes that allow for building the types of housing people want in places where they want it.
- TimPC 4y ago
  >Not really, if the municipality is in fact willing to centrally plan a city down to the micro-management level, and a different level of government wants to prevent it from happening. Some overriding is gonna have to happen here. I never said some overriding isn't going to have to happen. I never said the municipality should be able to plan down to the micromanagement level. All I said was that a blanket allowance for all buildings of a certain size on any street with a bus route regardless of the route reaching the building or not was absurd. I criticized a specific recommendation of a panel that suggested we completely override municipal planning and not allow them to address any concerns with any buildings on a street with a bus route as long as those buildings were 6 to 11 stories tall. I pointed out how it allowed for certain absurdities and was not a sound policy recommendation. >Indeed. Example: artificially embalming swathes of single-family neighbourhoods in time, right next to recently built public transit we're sinking billions into building. So let's not be selective about negative externalities and consider the ones created or exacerbated by NIMBY-driven urban planning, too. What you call artificial embalming others might call a status quo. It has its own negative externalities, I agree. I want more development than many people I know and don't think the status quo is sacrosanct. I also don't think the status quo is a state like any other that doesn't deserve any special consideration. I think it represents a way of life that people bought into and became part of a community with. Parts of that are bad: low density forever doesn't work. But there is a certain standard of services provided in the neighbourhood and developments need to be cognizant of that and be coordinated in ways that don't have huge adverse effects on that. I want smart development that considers the surrounding neighbourhood in reasonable ways. I don't want 50 story condo buildings in crowded school zones without a plan to build new schools. I don't want 50 story condo buildings that aren't on highways or good public transit when traffic studies show nearby intersections are at or near peak capacity. I also don't like it when developers consistently claim buildings in my neighbourhood will end up with 76% of occupants using public transit when after the fact surveys show that number is 39%. Instead of 24% of occupants driving we end up with 61% doing so, an impact of 254% of what was predicted on traffic patterns. I also dislike that we consider each development in isolation and don't do any holistic studies on the impacts, the net result of which is four different developments within two blocks of my house each show that facilities won't be overcrowded and traffic will be "within acceptable limits" if only their development proceeds. Then the province overrides the city and approves all four at once and we get severe overcrowding and overburdened facilities. There is also the double whammy that property taxes are based on a percentage of property value (which is lower for condos) and the percentage used is also lower for condos. The net result of this is that the municipality gets far less budget per capita and this leads to a decline in services. I'm not sure what a good solution is since we need more density but I have a lot of sympathy for people who don't think it's fair that the services of their neighbourhood are forced into a significant decline.

by TimPC 4y ago

kspacewalk2 4y ago

>I think you are leaping to a lot of conclusions not in evidence. There is a big difference between "centrally planning a city down to the micro-management level" and overriding any ability for a municipality to assert what it feels is needed in a development. Not really, if the municipality is in fact willing to centrally plan a city down to the micro-management level, and a different level of government wants to prevent it from happening. Some overriding is gonna have to happen here. >Negative externalities are a very real thing Indeed. Example: artificially embalming swathes of single-family neighbourhoods in time, right next to recently built public transit we're sinking billions into building. So let's not be selective about negative externalities and consider the ones created or exacerbated by NIMBY-driven urban planning, too. >allowing developers to have arbitrarily many of them at arbitrarily bad levels is not the only alternative to complete and total central planning. Believe it or not there are reasonable middle grounds that allow some influence on developments from central planning to limit negative externalities while also listening to market forces. My beliefs align somewhere in this middle ground. Sure. I too am somewhere between allowing toxic smelters next door to kindergartens and Soviet-style central planning where government owns all and builds all. Everyone's gonna align themselves somewhere in this middle ground between two contrived and straw-man extremes, all NIMBYs included. The whole debate is about where in this middle ground we ought to be. Forgive my skepticism, it's just that I've heard this middle-ground line often. And often, this is simply a rhetorical cop-out and a prelude to killing off any meaningful changes that allow for building the types of housing people want in places where they want it.

TimPC 4y ago
>Not really, if the municipality is in fact willing to centrally plan a city down to the micro-management level, and a different level of government wants to prevent it from happening. Some overriding is gonna have to happen here. I never said some overriding isn't going to have to happen. I never said the municipality should be able to plan down to the micromanagement level. All I said was that a blanket allowance for all buildings of a certain size on any street with a bus route regardless of the route reaching the building or not was absurd. I criticized a specific recommendation of a panel that suggested we completely override municipal planning and not allow them to address any concerns with any buildings on a street with a bus route as long as those buildings were 6 to 11 stories tall. I pointed out how it allowed for certain absurdities and was not a sound policy recommendation. >Indeed. Example: artificially embalming swathes of single-family neighbourhoods in time, right next to recently built public transit we're sinking billions into building. So let's not be selective about negative externalities and consider the ones created or exacerbated by NIMBY-driven urban planning, too. What you call artificial embalming others might call a status quo. It has its own negative externalities, I agree. I want more development than many people I know and don't think the status quo is sacrosanct. I also don't think the status quo is a state like any other that doesn't deserve any special consideration. I think it represents a way of life that people bought into and became part of a community with. Parts of that are bad: low density forever doesn't work. But there is a certain standard of services provided in the neighbourhood and developments need to be cognizant of that and be coordinated in ways that don't have huge adverse effects on that. I want smart development that considers the surrounding neighbourhood in reasonable ways. I don't want 50 story condo buildings in crowded school zones without a plan to build new schools. I don't want 50 story condo buildings that aren't on highways or good public transit when traffic studies show nearby intersections are at or near peak capacity. I also don't like it when developers consistently claim buildings in my neighbourhood will end up with 76% of occupants using public transit when after the fact surveys show that number is 39%. Instead of 24% of occupants driving we end up with 61% doing so, an impact of 254% of what was predicted on traffic patterns. I also dislike that we consider each development in isolation and don't do any holistic studies on the impacts, the net result of which is four different developments within two blocks of my house each show that facilities won't be overcrowded and traffic will be "within acceptable limits" if only their development proceeds. Then the province overrides the city and approves all four at once and we get severe overcrowding and overburdened facilities. There is also the double whammy that property taxes are based on a percentage of property value (which is lower for condos) and the percentage used is also lower for condos. The net result of this is that the municipality gets far less budget per capita and this leads to a decline in services. I'm not sure what a good solution is since we need more density but I have a lot of sympathy for people who don't think it's fair that the services of their neighbourhood are forced into a significant decline.