[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Like I said...if the people somewhere don't want it the other way, then that is harmful to those people. Do you think the people who live out in the country because they love the open space are being harmed in some way, because it's simply a fact that low density is harmful? Harmful is not some solid fact. For me, listening to dubstep is harmful. Other people think dubstep is the best music out there. Harmful is not a set-in-stone emotion.

Well, there's quantifiable evidence to show the problems with facilitating those lifestyles. Especially when you try and import it into a city. I mean, how many rural towns have you been through? How many bypassed one-gas-station towns have you spent time in?

I've done a silly amount of cross country driving, and I've spend plenty of time in them. They're hurting. Hard. It's a lot of things all coming together to make that happen, sure, but the Growth Ponzie Scheme, and the ultra decentralized nature of the areas are, quantitatively, having a negative impact on those towns.

Massive infrastructure bills for few people spread too far apart with no hope of being able to handle it.

I'd like to live in a 5-bedroom house with a 3-car garage on a lake with a boat dock. That doesn't mean I have some right to live there and that it "should" be available to everyone who wants it for low cost. That's a reality of life. If endless grids of small houses on narrow streets is your idea of great then good for you. I, and many thousands of other people in the city, would absolutely hate that. It would not be better.

It would be better from many, many quantifiable senses, yes. I'm not saying anyone really has a right to live in any specific place, but that doesn't mean we should actively restrict people either. Especially if it means more effective city services, more people with higher quality of lives, etc.

I want to make sure we can include as many people, of as many income levels as possible, in the success of our great city while also securing its financial future. I'm sorry you don't.

The most dense areas in our country are also generally the most expensive. You counter with "well, they need even more density". Where does it end? When does it become cheap and affordable? Show me some super-dense, affordable, desirable areas.

Well, desirable will be subjective. I won't pretend that there's one that you'd like, since you patently don't like density. I, however, liked Mexico City. They had a wide variety of housing choices, with plenty of variety available. Another example I routinely use is Tokyo, where you can find a variety of housing choices without going broke. You'll certainly be hard pressed to find a good example in the U.S., though, since pretty much every major city has the same set of restrictive zoning problems. Simply put, though, it'll end when the prices are stable (including inflation).

In Atlanta's case, that point is by taking care of the 450,000 some people who want to live in the city today, while also keeping up with the 450,000 others expected to come here. Meeting that demand would stabilize prices, while surpassing it would lower prices.

I know for a fact, that you won't solve anything by trying to just ignore the demand. You won't stop the urban migrations by trying to will everyone to live in a detached house on a large lot. You won't lower prices by not building more housing.

I've been fully open about the fact that it's my opinion. I like Atlanta's setup and our neighborhoods. It's why I moved here. I don't want to see this city become a concrete urban jungle like NYC or any of the others. I believe we have PLENTY of available space and land to build housing for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people without killing what we already have. An accessory dwelling unit here and there is no big deal. Sorry if that offends you. You don't like my preferences, I think most of your are patently ridiculous. That's the great thing about being human.

Something won't simply happen because it's no longer illegal. You know that, right? Just because everyone would be allowed to have a buisiness in their front room, or be allowed to build an accessory dwelling unit, or turn their large home into a duplex, or build a new home without a front yard, or any number of other things, doesn't mean everyone will do that.

The city certainly won't poof into being Manhattan overnight, nor do I think we'll be anywhere close to that even in a few decades. Doesn't mean we shouldn't give both the market and the individuals the flexibility to meet current and imminent demand.

I certainly don't believe that your, or my for that matter, personal taste should over ride giving the market the tools needed to meet peoples' needs. I don't believe that anything other than truly historic sites should be preserved in amber as you want.

Heck, most of the places you hold up so dearly aren't even staying the way you want. Older homes get torn down all the time, but instead of multi-family buildings, they replace the lots with McMansions that could fit four families easily. I don't even care if that would have happened otherwise, but I can't help but think of how many people we could be improving life for if the option had been there by default.

I've been very clear about how I think we can build tons of housing for large numbers of people, much of it Beltline-adjacent, without destroying what we already have. That's just plain not good enough for you. You won't rest until the people who have large lots they worked to attain no longer have the ability. Accessory dwelling units are not an answer to anything.

There you go again, trying to paint me as some big oggie-boogie man after people's land. No. I don't care if a person who owns a large lot has one. I don't care if a person buys a few small lots and puts them together, though if the demand is there for higher density I would be perplexed as to why they did that, especially if they were a commercial entity. What I do care about is this insistence that they must stay large lots no matter what the demand calls for.

I agree, we can house tons of people along the BeltLine, and I've called for the city to use proactive methods to incentivize that development, like the BeltLine itself, I refuse to encase parts of the city in amber, though, for personal tastes.

If one area has the demand to densify, sure, go for it. If another has too much supply and wants to thin out, sure, go for it, though I'd suggest the city put in a park or something to attract demand.

I've also been very open about my desire for a lot more transit. And every time I produce any sort of plan or idea, the usual suspects chime in about how "we can't do that because there aren't enough people". But the whole "we should remove highway lanes or charge $10 a trip to use them, and make surface streets nearly impossible to navigate, in order to promote the use of alternatives" mantra is going to get you nowhere.

And I've supported your exact calls for more transit. I've made plenty of my own. I do want us to make better use of our limited surface road, space, though, and, generally speaking, prioritizing cars isn't the way to do that.

Again, I'm just looking at numbers. How many people can you move in a given space? How much does that cost for the given development supported? How do you fund better options?

If cars were the best answer, I'd be supporting them. They aren't, though, in pretty much every quantitative sense. My offered solutions may not make me popular, but that doesn't mean they're without merit.

I never suggested that roving bands of land-cowboys were going to come and chop your land up. I have simply said that by the very virtue of the fact that someone owns a piece of property, that does not mean that his desires and interests are going to be in the best interests of the city/neighborhood as a whole.

You routinely paint me and jsvh as if we want to force people to live a certain way. You've done it in this very post. We just want to offer true options, and let the cards fall as they might. It's certainly better than trying to maintain laws that actual do force people to do things against their best financial interests.

Look up Prince Mongo, a notorious character in Memphis and other places. He would buy historic properties, then fill the yards with old cars, toilets hanging from trees, mannequins, etc. Without some restrictions, he could buy a property in a high-value SFH neighborhood, then essentially turn it into a low-rent apartment complex, effectively destroying everyone around him. He had not a care what anyone around him thought. I've mentioned in my neighborhood the guy who brought dozens of ice cream trucks in and essentially turned our small street into a mechanic shop and warehouse. YOU do not appear to be affected by anything around you. Concrete plant next door? No problem. You must understand that most people do not feel this way.

And when have I suggested that garbage (an ecological hazard) or large industrial facilities (health hazard) are part of my suggestions? How did you get from removing minimum parking and setbacks to building a concrete plant?

Just another of your mischaracterizations of my argument, I suppose.

So, because I think about 20% of the city should be maintained, leaving some 80% of the city open for development, that's out of line for you? Allowing a concrete plant to be built next door to me doesn't force me to build a concrete plant or force me to do anything, but what it does do is effectively destroy my quality of life unless I move. Even an apartment complex or a bar could do the same. I think you're ridiculous, and have absolutely no concept of how most people actually prefer to live. Your desires are not normal.

We have 900,000 people to house in the coming decades. Half of them are here and want in already. That 20% of the city will absolutely be needed to handle, if not a large portion, at least some of the demand. Even so, that 20% of the city that you want to enshrine is also the portion best suited to, if they wanted, resist the change on a personal property level. I just don't think we should legally bind them if they want to do something else.

Considering how badly you misunderstand my position, though, I really don't think you're in a position to say whether my desires are normal or not. In the mean time, I'll keep following the data and professionals.

And expensive, as you would expect.

You know what we already know will make things more affordable? Building more supply to meet demand.