7 ms·

NIMBY No More: Gainesville, Florida, Moves to End Single-Family Zoning

21 points by shaburn 4y ago

shaburn 4y ago
"Most residents who showed up to Thursday evening’s meeting opposed the move, citing concerns about gentrification, property values and quality of life."
codefreeordie 4y ago
Wanting to have a nice place to live isn't "NIMBY", it is wanting a nice place to live. If you want to live in a dense urban jungle, we already have lots of those in this country
- shaburn 4y ago
  Not enough by the likes of some
- mechagodzilla 4y ago
  That's pretty much the definition of "NIMBY" - "Not in my backyard!" You want the people that might move to your neighborhood and live in denser housing to go live somewhere/anywhere else (and if that place isn't particularly nice for them, well, that's not your problem), and you want to use the law to enforce it.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    "I would like to continue to have access to single family housing with a nice yard that I maintain and neighbors I don't share walls or utilities with. If there are people who want dense housing they should also have that option" Is not remotely the same as "I don't want to live in denser housing and I don't want it built anywhere"
    - mechagodzilla 4y ago
      Nobody has ever said "I don't want denser housing to be built anywhere" - they say "I don't want denser housing built near me, and I want the law to enforce my preference" (i.e. NIMBY). This isn't about outlawing single family housing, it's about letting economics dictate what can be built and where. If your neighbor wants to convert their house into a duplex, and two families want to live there, why should you be able to stop them?
      - codefreeordie 4y ago
        And what are the YIMBYs doing? They're trying to use the force of "law" to go to an area owned by people who are happy and demolish their towns and give it all to the new replacement population
      - tpmoney 4y ago
        And if a wealthy developer wants to buy up an apartment block in Harlem and tear it all down and replace it with a gated McMansion, why should anyone be able to stop them? Or if your neighbor wants to rent out their house as a 24/7 rave and auto shop, why should anyone be able to stop them? At the fundamental level, this fight is about self determination how small does a cluster of people have to be before they’re not allowed to set the rules for the area they live in. Can a state ban a developer from turning a major thoroughfare into a replica of the Vegas strip if the citizens of that state don’t want it? Can a county? Can a city? Can a town? Can a neighborhood? Do people from outside an area have a fundamental right to impose laws on an area to make that area more palatable to their sensibilities? The obvious answer is in all of these cases, sometimes yes and sometimes no. But the fight is about where the lines are drawn. Why can’t a group of like minded people decide they want the area they live in to be exclusively single family homes on half acre lots? Why can’t a group of like minded people decide they want the area they live in to be exclusively high rises? Or exclusively low income housing? Or exclusively walkable? Or exclusively mixed use but only for local businesses and not multi state chains? What makes one persons later birth or lack of income more deserving of a home in a given area than the people who already live there? Or to put it another way, would it be unreasonable for the people in a rural French village to decry (and want to stop) the construction of a raft of new McMansions and some massive Wal-marts. And if it’s not unreasonable, what makes their desire to have their homes and neighborhoods a certain way more legitimate than anyone else’s? Just time?
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  We have 3, and basically everywhere else is just strip malls, Targets, and "lifestyle centers." America is a beautiful country and we're just paving it.
- DerekL 4y ago
  How terrible, a dense urban jungle, with miles and miles of quadplexes. You can barely see the sun anymore, blotted out by gigantic two-story buildings.
  - shaburn 4y ago
    Yes. This is the counter argument. No strawman here.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    So are two-story single family homes usually banned in these neighbourhoods? Maybe they should mandate that buildings are half inside ground so they would be even lower allowing even more light.
- kory 4y ago
  The YIMBYs want to move to your neighborhood, so you and your neighbors are obligated to make as much space for them as needed. Oh, you like your neighborhood how it is? Don't worry, you'll learn to love <relying on public transport instead of cars, no parking, increased traffic, blocked out sunlight, tiny and eventually no yards, large buildings next door>. Your way of living is bad because cars and sprawl are bad and YIMBYs don't like them, they think the walkable urban mixed use neighborhoods are superior, so we're going to remove the zoning to force change. Aren't those things what you want? No? Well you'll learn to like them, because you shouldn't have power over what your neighbor can build on their property. You say your neighborhood overwhelmingly votes to keep it that way, not just you? Actually, your neighborhood shouldn't have power to vote for this zoning either, because we know what's best for your neighborhood, not you. This is how every argument with a YIMBY goes.
  - shaburn 4y ago
    You left out morality attacks and disregarding decades of legal contracts and legislation that created the value they often want to pillage.
    - kory 4y ago
      I intentionally left out YIMBY moral grandstanding, because it's usually a shield to hide the real reason they feel zoning should be changed: "I can't afford your neighborhood and I want to live there"
      - shaburn 4y ago
        aka I want to use guilt, envy, and the legal system to extract value from your legal property.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        That's just good business! If you don't like it, move.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  Having a duplex next door doesn't put you in a "dense urban jungle".
- janef0421 4y ago
  Is Paris a "dense urban jungle"? There are plenty of sustainable and practical urban forms outside of Manhattan-style high-rises.
mturmon 4y ago
I don't know enough about Gainesville to comment seriously on this particular change, and the article is light on details. But the gloss it gives is this: > "...allow duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes to be built on land currently zoned for single-family homes" If true, this is a pretty minor change from R1 zoning. * I live in a part of coastal California with housing prices that have been rising very fast, much faster than wages -- for a couple of decades. And the effects of strict R1 zoning mean that unless you're rich, or already own property there, you have to leave town. Most folks can't buy a home except by going very far to the outskirts of the city. This is a serious problem for people who are starting their career. And ultimately strict R1 zoning has an almost uncountable number of eventual knock-on consequences: clogged highways, people with super-long car commutes, more pollution, an increasing amount of money spent on roads and dispersed infrastructure that aren't really necessary or even wanted by many people. An aging population of people in SFR's that many don't really want, because it's the only mode of living. This one really does need a re-think. (And that's how I became a YIMBY despite owning a home!)
- shaburn 4y ago
  Zoning laws have been around far longer than commutes. Most of your retired community has too.
- shaburn 4y ago
  Also, "If true, this is a pretty minor change from R1 zoning." Totally wrong. Even if you were increasing population density 1 to 1 (substantially more so with each unit) that is a 2X, 3X, and 4X increase in population density alone.
  - poulsbohemian 4y ago
    You've been a member here since 2016, but have very low karma and this seems to be among the only threads you've ever commented on, IE: this seems to be an issue that really matters to you. Can you share more info about your background and apparent passion for this topic? FWIW: My little rural community is one of the first in our state to pass these kind of residential density changes. It's been good for us, but I definitely see where it has been jarring in more urban areas and hasn't really had the intended impact in either type of city.
therational1s 4y ago
Look at the minimum setbacks (5 ft. on the sides of a quadraplex, 10 ft. in front), and the 2 parking spaces allowed in front of each 4-unit building, and tell me how this will work. Also, we are already a heat island and this will dramatically increase our contribution to climate change. Also, if you think this will bring down the price of homes, I have some land in South Florida to sell you...swampland!

21 points by shaburn 4y ago

"Most residents who showed up to Thursday evening’s meeting opposed the move, citing concerns about gentrification, property values and quality of life."

codefreeordie 4y ago

Wanting to have a nice place to live isn't "NIMBY", it is wanting a nice place to live. If you want to live in a dense urban jungle, we already have lots of those in this country

shaburn 4y ago
Not enough by the likes of some
mechagodzilla 4y ago
That's pretty much the definition of "NIMBY" - "Not in my backyard!" You want the people that might move to your neighborhood and live in denser housing to go live somewhere/anywhere else (and if that place isn't particularly nice for them, well, that's not your problem), and you want to use the law to enforce it.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  "I would like to continue to have access to single family housing with a nice yard that I maintain and neighbors I don't share walls or utilities with. If there are people who want dense housing they should also have that option" Is not remotely the same as "I don't want to live in denser housing and I don't want it built anywhere"
  - mechagodzilla 4y ago
    Nobody has ever said "I don't want denser housing to be built anywhere" - they say "I don't want denser housing built near me, and I want the law to enforce my preference" (i.e. NIMBY). This isn't about outlawing single family housing, it's about letting economics dictate what can be built and where. If your neighbor wants to convert their house into a duplex, and two families want to live there, why should you be able to stop them?
    - codefreeordie 4y ago
      And what are the YIMBYs doing? They're trying to use the force of "law" to go to an area owned by people who are happy and demolish their towns and give it all to the new replacement population
    - tpmoney 4y ago
      And if a wealthy developer wants to buy up an apartment block in Harlem and tear it all down and replace it with a gated McMansion, why should anyone be able to stop them? Or if your neighbor wants to rent out their house as a 24/7 rave and auto shop, why should anyone be able to stop them? At the fundamental level, this fight is about self determination how small does a cluster of people have to be before they’re not allowed to set the rules for the area they live in. Can a state ban a developer from turning a major thoroughfare into a replica of the Vegas strip if the citizens of that state don’t want it? Can a county? Can a city? Can a town? Can a neighborhood? Do people from outside an area have a fundamental right to impose laws on an area to make that area more palatable to their sensibilities? The obvious answer is in all of these cases, sometimes yes and sometimes no. But the fight is about where the lines are drawn. Why can’t a group of like minded people decide they want the area they live in to be exclusively single family homes on half acre lots? Why can’t a group of like minded people decide they want the area they live in to be exclusively high rises? Or exclusively low income housing? Or exclusively walkable? Or exclusively mixed use but only for local businesses and not multi state chains? What makes one persons later birth or lack of income more deserving of a home in a given area than the people who already live there? Or to put it another way, would it be unreasonable for the people in a rural French village to decry (and want to stop) the construction of a raft of new McMansions and some massive Wal-marts. And if it’s not unreasonable, what makes their desire to have their homes and neighborhoods a certain way more legitimate than anyone else’s? Just time?
throwayyy479087 4y ago
We have 3, and basically everywhere else is just strip malls, Targets, and "lifestyle centers." America is a beautiful country and we're just paving it.
DerekL 4y ago
How terrible, a dense urban jungle, with miles and miles of quadplexes. You can barely see the sun anymore, blotted out by gigantic two-story buildings.
- shaburn 4y ago
  Yes. This is the counter argument. No strawman here.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  So are two-story single family homes usually banned in these neighbourhoods? Maybe they should mandate that buildings are half inside ground so they would be even lower allowing even more light.
kory 4y ago
The YIMBYs want to move to your neighborhood, so you and your neighbors are obligated to make as much space for them as needed. Oh, you like your neighborhood how it is? Don't worry, you'll learn to love <relying on public transport instead of cars, no parking, increased traffic, blocked out sunlight, tiny and eventually no yards, large buildings next door>. Your way of living is bad because cars and sprawl are bad and YIMBYs don't like them, they think the walkable urban mixed use neighborhoods are superior, so we're going to remove the zoning to force change. Aren't those things what you want? No? Well you'll learn to like them, because you shouldn't have power over what your neighbor can build on their property. You say your neighborhood overwhelmingly votes to keep it that way, not just you? Actually, your neighborhood shouldn't have power to vote for this zoning either, because we know what's best for your neighborhood, not you. This is how every argument with a YIMBY goes.
- shaburn 4y ago
  You left out morality attacks and disregarding decades of legal contracts and legislation that created the value they often want to pillage.
  - kory 4y ago
    I intentionally left out YIMBY moral grandstanding, because it's usually a shield to hide the real reason they feel zoning should be changed: "I can't afford your neighborhood and I want to live there"
    - shaburn 4y ago
      aka I want to use guilt, envy, and the legal system to extract value from your legal property.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        That's just good business! If you don't like it, move.
amanaplanacanal 4y ago
Having a duplex next door doesn't put you in a "dense urban jungle".
janef0421 4y ago
Is Paris a "dense urban jungle"? There are plenty of sustainable and practical urban forms outside of Manhattan-style high-rises.

mturmon 4y ago

I don't know enough about Gainesville to comment seriously on this particular change, and the article is light on details. But the gloss it gives is this: > "...allow duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes to be built on land currently zoned for single-family homes" If true, this is a pretty minor change from R1 zoning. * I live in a part of coastal California with housing prices that have been rising very fast, much faster than wages -- for a couple of decades. And the effects of strict R1 zoning mean that unless you're rich, or already own property there, you have to leave town. Most folks can't buy a home except by going very far to the outskirts of the city. This is a serious problem for people who are starting their career. And ultimately strict R1 zoning has an almost uncountable number of eventual knock-on consequences: clogged highways, people with super-long car commutes, more pollution, an increasing amount of money spent on roads and dispersed infrastructure that aren't really necessary or even wanted by many people. An aging population of people in SFR's that many don't really want, because it's the only mode of living. This one really does need a re-think. (And that's how I became a YIMBY despite owning a home!)

shaburn 4y ago
Zoning laws have been around far longer than commutes. Most of your retired community has too.
shaburn 4y ago
Also, "If true, this is a pretty minor change from R1 zoning." Totally wrong. Even if you were increasing population density 1 to 1 (substantially more so with each unit) that is a 2X, 3X, and 4X increase in population density alone.
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  You've been a member here since 2016, but have very low karma and this seems to be among the only threads you've ever commented on, IE: this seems to be an issue that really matters to you. Can you share more info about your background and apparent passion for this topic? FWIW: My little rural community is one of the first in our state to pass these kind of residential density changes. It's been good for us, but I definitely see where it has been jarring in more urban areas and hasn't really had the intended impact in either type of city.

therational1s 4y ago

Look at the minimum setbacks (5 ft. on the sides of a quadraplex, 10 ft. in front), and the 2 parking spaces allowed in front of each 4-unit building, and tell me how this will work. Also, we are already a heat island and this will dramatically increase our contribution to climate change. Also, if you think this will bring down the price of homes, I have some land in South Florida to sell you...swampland!