4 ms·

Zoning fixes and dense, walkable city planning is the solution. It's just that there would need to be some law from the top level of government, eg. on a nation

by judge2020 4y ago

Zoning fixes and dense, walkable city planning is the solution. It's just that there would need to be some law from the top level of government, eg. on a national or state level, to force cities have a certain minimum amount of high-density development every year. Because, right now, these cities adhere to their constituents who all would prefer if the supply remained stagnant so that their property values can continue to increase well past whatever they're paying for their monthly mortgage payment.

sokoloff 4y ago
I’m staunchly opposed to a national or state government forcing a certain type of development onto cities. Forcing the approval of some type of permits and permitting high density development in some amount/type of area is much more reasonable and executable. (If a city were falling short of the originally proposed mandated housing, what entity would have to make up the shortfall and how would you force them to build a development they’re not asking to build?)
- eesmith 4y ago
  One of the zoning fixes along the lines judge2020 mentioned is to remove the parking minimum requirements, which already forces a certain type of development onto cities. Another is to remove zoning laws preventing secondary suites / in-law apartments / granny flats / etc. These also force a certain type of development onto cities. Another fix - not so much zoning though - is to move to 10' lanes instead of 12'. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-06/why-12-foot-traffic-lanes-are-disastrous-for-safety-and-must-be-replaced-now https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-06/why-12-fo... , which again forces a certain type of development onto cities. After decades of existing forced development, it too easily becomes the baseline of what is "normal."
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I think that all of those examples are AHJs imposing restrictions on themselves, rather than someone else imposing restrictions on them from outside/containment. I have no problem with cities imposing restrictions on cities, as that is amenable to democratic review by the voters in that city. Having a national imposition on a city would be objectionable to me on principle (and in the US, would very likely violate the 10th Amendment). AHJ - authorities having jurisdiction, basically "whoever sets and enforces the codes"
    - judge2020 4y ago
      My point is that nothing will ever change if this governing structure continues. By law, cities only protect their constituents, so any high-density development is going to encounter insane barriers since the increased competition within the area would drop values of nearby single-family homes, and cities will be made aware of this by the NIMBYs that show up at city hall meetings to push back against the development.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        I don't have a serious objection nor see a constitutional challenge to having a state impose restrictions upon itself or its cities. (The same thing done federally is the problem.) That still leaves the problem in your original proposal of "how exactly do you plan to enforce the required level of high-density development if no one is asking to do it?"
        eesmith 4y ago
        I regard your objection as naive. The National 55 MPH speed limit shows the federal government, through the power of the purse, can have a strong influence on state traffic laws. The history of zoning shows how the State Standard Zoning Enabling Act - a federal work - can influence the states to change. There appear to be easy ways to tweak judge2020's proposal to make it better reflect demand, but I don't care to argue that issue. > AHJs imposing restrictions on themselves judge2020's point is that zoning laws support current residents, not future residents, so AHJs have a systemic bias against making these changes. judge2020's proposal is to look towards the democratically elected bodies which have a wider scope. As a concrete example, California recently made it easier to build mother-in-law units (ADUs in CA terms), by reducing the requirements cities and counties can enforce. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/03/12/californias-new-accessory-dwelling-units-laws-what-you-should-know/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/03/12... . This law is why I mentioned mother-in-law units as an example. That change in California law has no constitutional issues like what you are opposed to.
        4y ago
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    Another one that's obvious to me: Removing unit-size minimums. In places like SF people are defacto already hacking around the minimum by having room mates. If nobody wants small units, the market will not provide them.

sokoloff 4y ago

I’m staunchly opposed to a national or state government forcing a certain type of development onto cities. Forcing the approval of some type of permits and permitting high density development in some amount/type of area is much more reasonable and executable. (If a city were falling short of the originally proposed mandated housing, what entity would have to make up the shortfall and how would you force them to build a development they’re not asking to build?)

eesmith 4y ago
One of the zoning fixes along the lines judge2020 mentioned is to remove the parking minimum requirements, which already forces a certain type of development onto cities. Another is to remove zoning laws preventing secondary suites / in-law apartments / granny flats / etc. These also force a certain type of development onto cities. Another fix - not so much zoning though - is to move to 10' lanes instead of 12'. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-06/why-12-foot-traffic-lanes-are-disastrous-for-safety-and-must-be-replaced-now https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-06/why-12-fo... , which again forces a certain type of development onto cities. After decades of existing forced development, it too easily becomes the baseline of what is "normal."
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I think that all of those examples are AHJs imposing restrictions on themselves, rather than someone else imposing restrictions on them from outside/containment. I have no problem with cities imposing restrictions on cities, as that is amenable to democratic review by the voters in that city. Having a national imposition on a city would be objectionable to me on principle (and in the US, would very likely violate the 10th Amendment). AHJ - authorities having jurisdiction, basically "whoever sets and enforces the codes"
  - judge2020 4y ago
    My point is that nothing will ever change if this governing structure continues. By law, cities only protect their constituents, so any high-density development is going to encounter insane barriers since the increased competition within the area would drop values of nearby single-family homes, and cities will be made aware of this by the NIMBYs that show up at city hall meetings to push back against the development.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I don't have a serious objection nor see a constitutional challenge to having a state impose restrictions upon itself or its cities. (The same thing done federally is the problem.) That still leaves the problem in your original proposal of "how exactly do you plan to enforce the required level of high-density development if no one is asking to do it?"
      - eesmith 4y ago
        I regard your objection as naive. The National 55 MPH speed limit shows the federal government, through the power of the purse, can have a strong influence on state traffic laws. The history of zoning shows how the State Standard Zoning Enabling Act - a federal work - can influence the states to change. There appear to be easy ways to tweak judge2020's proposal to make it better reflect demand, but I don't care to argue that issue. > AHJs imposing restrictions on themselves judge2020's point is that zoning laws support current residents, not future residents, so AHJs have a systemic bias against making these changes. judge2020's proposal is to look towards the democratically elected bodies which have a wider scope. As a concrete example, California recently made it easier to build mother-in-law units (ADUs in CA terms), by reducing the requirements cities and counties can enforce. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/03/12/californias-new-accessory-dwelling-units-laws-what-you-should-know/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/03/12... . This law is why I mentioned mother-in-law units as an example. That change in California law has no constitutional issues like what you are opposed to.
        4y ago
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  Another one that's obvious to me: Removing unit-size minimums. In places like SF people are defacto already hacking around the minimum by having room mates. If nobody wants small units, the market will not provide them.