8 ms·

I don't want any development in my charming rural town. But if I have to pick, I'd prefer single family homes. Everyone knows that big developments bring crime,

I don't want any development in my charming rural town. But if I have to pick, I'd prefer single family homes. Everyone knows that big developments bring crime, traffic/more cars, environmental concerns, burdens on the school system, etc. If you say otherwise, you're delusional. Build vertically in urban areas with jobs/resources/retail around. Actually, one of the first times I participated in local politics, was to successfully block a large development (100+ units, some of which included "affordable housing" lol). The developer was a favorite of the state - they get all the big contracts all over the state, and some former government officials are on their board (no doubt accepting bribes for their influence). It was a coalition of residents that spanned partisan politics. Just showing up to meetings on these issues, and if you have any public speaking skills, highlight the ties of the corrupt local political class to the developer/construction companies - locals don't like being hoodwinked by that.

pilom 2y ago
And how much more expensive is rent in your town because it has 100 fewer units? That is the opportunity cost. Unfortunately, these opportunity costs are not borne by landowners, just by renters. And then when the government charges landowners higher taxes on their now more valuable property, the owners balk.
- Eumenes 2y ago
  My town almost has zero renters - something like 5-7%. Most of those are accessory dwellings or STR for the lake in town. Very low property tax (paying $1200/year on a $400k 2k sq foot home with 5 acres). Shares a school district with 4 other local towns/villages. The developer/advocates for this initiative tried to sell residents on "local businesses need employees..." - Sorry, I don't give a shit. If you can't hire people, pay them more + offer better benefits. Building "affordable" houses so you can import minimum wage worker populations that also benefit from state welfare/ebt/insurance is not good policy.
fmobus 2y ago
> Everyone knows that big developments bring crime, traffic/more cars, environmental concerns, burdens on the school system, etc. Citation needed. In fact, denser development, when done right, reduces traffic and makes public transit more viable. > If you say otherwise, you're delusional. Europe is just fine. > Build vertically in urban areas with jobs/resources/retail around Alternative: allow mixed zoning everywhere, so that small business have the chance to be close to residents instead of being forced to compete with big boxes. Also, slash parking requirements. They are mostly made up with no basis on anything, most numbers are just vibes.
voisin 2y ago
> Everyone knows that big developments bring crime, traffic/more cars, environmental concerns, burdens on the school system, etc. If you say otherwise, you're delusional. Build vertically in urban areas with jobs/resources/retail around. I am confused what you are talking about. A single mid-rise building brings far more tax revenue than the equivalent land in single family homes, which supports a lot of the initiatives you are referring to. Also, environmentally, the benefits of heating and cooling and fewer cars on the road etc for a dense development are far greater than single family. And crime… I have no idea what you are referring to. But go to Jane Jacobs’ work in the 60s and the idea of “eyes on the street” and how more density means fewer opportunities for crime (per capita) and particularly when accounting for socioeconomic status. Anyways, I think you’re wrong but I’d be interested to know what you are basing your thoughts on.
- Eumenes 2y ago
  I've never seen property taxes go down for a local town/municipality. I don't care about tax revenue. I don't want Mcdonalds or Walmart in my town. I don't want huge developments. Keep things small.
CalRobert 2y ago
Where will those 100+ people live instead?
- Eumenes 2y ago
  Don't care. They don't live here - there aren't 100s of homeless families around town. They live out of town. Its not a towns responsibility to subsidize housing for people who aren't even residents.
  - CalRobert 2y ago
    Before you moved there you were one of those 100.

pilom 2y ago

And how much more expensive is rent in your town because it has 100 fewer units? That is the opportunity cost. Unfortunately, these opportunity costs are not borne by landowners, just by renters. And then when the government charges landowners higher taxes on their now more valuable property, the owners balk.

Eumenes 2y ago
My town almost has zero renters - something like 5-7%. Most of those are accessory dwellings or STR for the lake in town. Very low property tax (paying $1200/year on a $400k 2k sq foot home with 5 acres). Shares a school district with 4 other local towns/villages. The developer/advocates for this initiative tried to sell residents on "local businesses need employees..." - Sorry, I don't give a shit. If you can't hire people, pay them more + offer better benefits. Building "affordable" houses so you can import minimum wage worker populations that also benefit from state welfare/ebt/insurance is not good policy.

fmobus 2y ago

> Everyone knows that big developments bring crime, traffic/more cars, environmental concerns, burdens on the school system, etc. Citation needed. In fact, denser development, when done right, reduces traffic and makes public transit more viable. > If you say otherwise, you're delusional. Europe is just fine. > Build vertically in urban areas with jobs/resources/retail around Alternative: allow mixed zoning everywhere, so that small business have the chance to be close to residents instead of being forced to compete with big boxes. Also, slash parking requirements. They are mostly made up with no basis on anything, most numbers are just vibes.

voisin 2y ago

> Everyone knows that big developments bring crime, traffic/more cars, environmental concerns, burdens on the school system, etc. If you say otherwise, you're delusional. Build vertically in urban areas with jobs/resources/retail around. I am confused what you are talking about. A single mid-rise building brings far more tax revenue than the equivalent land in single family homes, which supports a lot of the initiatives you are referring to. Also, environmentally, the benefits of heating and cooling and fewer cars on the road etc for a dense development are far greater than single family. And crime… I have no idea what you are referring to. But go to Jane Jacobs’ work in the 60s and the idea of “eyes on the street” and how more density means fewer opportunities for crime (per capita) and particularly when accounting for socioeconomic status. Anyways, I think you’re wrong but I’d be interested to know what you are basing your thoughts on.

Eumenes 2y ago
I've never seen property taxes go down for a local town/municipality. I don't care about tax revenue. I don't want Mcdonalds or Walmart in my town. I don't want huge developments. Keep things small.

CalRobert 2y ago

Where will those 100+ people live instead?

Eumenes 2y ago
Don't care. They don't live here - there aren't 100s of homeless families around town. They live out of town. Its not a towns responsibility to subsidize housing for people who aren't even residents.
- CalRobert 2y ago
  Before you moved there you were one of those 100.