3 ms·
We've had these laws in NJ (USA) for many years now. The results are mixed. What basically happened is that if a several acre lot became available in a suburban
by jimmydddd 4y ago
We've had these laws in NJ (USA) for many years now. The results are mixed. What basically happened is that if a several acre lot became available in a suburban town, the builder would petition to change the single familty home zoing to allow them to build a 100 unit condo buliding. My relatively small town had a population of about 7k people for many years, but then quickly shot up to 10k in just a few years due to many 100 unit buildings being built.
NJ is unusual in that we have many small towns. The large builders learned how to take advantage of these laws and built legal teams that can easily defeat the lawyers representing the small towns. And the small towns don't want to risk millions of taxpayer dollars on a litigation with a small chance of winning.
And the town always loses in the court of public opinion. The towns try to argue against forced over development, but the large builders change the narative to the town being racist/classist/greedy, etc. If you go to the K Hovnanian site and look at the map of their developments, NJ is full of red dots.
- gowld 4y agoWhat's wrong with building housing for people who want a place to live?
- jimmydddd 4y agoI agree it's great to build housing. But picture this scenario. You buy a 3 bedroom house on a quiet cul de sac with five other similar houses next to it. At the end of the cul de sac next to your house is a few acres of woods. A builder then builds a 100 town house 5-story building right behind your house. An entrance to the building is put in right next to your house and you now have 200 cars from the 100 units entering and exiting right past your house. The new residents can stare down from the fifth floor of their units into your once private back yard. And of the 100 units, only 10 or 15 are designated low-income.