Real talk about sprawl (Atlanta, East Point: home, neighborhood, college)

[drs72]

When considering an idea like this, it's important to look at the precedent that's already out there, their effectiveness, and how their ideas could be improved upon when implemented in your own community. Take, for example, the Washington, DC area. In an effort to promote smart growth closer to the core and retain farmlands and forests in the area, suburban Montgomery County, Maryland and Loudoun County, Virginia, among others, have implemented growth restrictions in their outer fringes. Make no mistake, these restrictions have promoted smart growth closer to DC, but they have also led to developers leap-frogging these restricted area to even further locales, leading to the suburbanization of Frederick and Washington County, Maryland and Jefferson and Berkeley County, West Virginia, fifty plus miles from the city.

[SLIMMACKEY]

Originally Posted by cqholt

What value? As the cost of gas rises and maintenance on cars the value of living in low-density, shoddy built homes is reduced. My house is 85 years old, things were built to last back then, not like now where the developer builds cheap homes and fills them with crappy built appliances and counters that fall apart in 10 years.

What value? Surely a detached single family home in Kennesaw bought for 200K gives more bang for the buck than a small home in Techwood, VA Highlands or highrise condo downtown. You really dispute that fact?

The increased price of gas is a constant no matter where you live. If you do not solely rely on public transit then the carrying/operating/maintenance costs of owning and operating a vehicle is inherent. It is one's choice to buy a suburban with a 33 gallon tank, or Range Rover that gets less than 15 miles to the gallon and has exuberant maintenance costs. People are free to buy what they want but to complain about it due to buyers remorse falls on deaf ears over here...We are all in the same boat.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

Then you have to ask yourself this question: What about urban people whom grow up in the inner city that no longer want to live there their whole lives? My opinion AND view is that most people whom covet the lifestyle you speak of are those that were not raised in inner city enviro's.

I am one of the people who grew up in a big city (Queens, NY). I agree with you 100%.

[SLIMMACKEY]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I am one of the people who grew up in a big city (Queens, NY). I agree with you 100%.

Right...Im in Manhattan now and you very well know most people are drawn to NYC to experience city life because they never have. Not all, but most. And those that are from the city have had their fill of it. Thats why I will never sell my place in ATL; Im only gonna do NYC for another 2 years then back to Sandy Springs!!!

[JPD]

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

What value? Surely a detached single family home in Kennesaw bought for 200K gives more 1. bang for the buck than a small home in Techwood, VA Highlands or highrise condo downtown. You really dispute that fact?

The increased price of gas is a constant no matter where you live. If you do not solely rely on public transit then 2. the carrying/operating/maintenance costs of owning and operating a vehicle is inherent. It is one's choice to buy a suburban with a 33 gallon tank, or Range Rover that gets less than 15 miles to the gallon and has exuberant maintenance costs. People are free to buy what they want but to complain about it due to buyers remorse falls on deaf ears over here...We are all in the same boat.

1. Depends how you define "bang for the buck." Some might define it as a large house and large yard. Others might define it as walkability and closeness to amenities. So this "fact" is not a fact at all. It's just an opinion.

2. The operating and maintenance costs of a vehicle are only equal on a per mile basis. People who live intown tend to drive significantly fewer miles than people in the suburbs, so for the intowners, the cost of operating and maintaining a car is lower than it is for people in the suburbs.

[researchnerd]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

I think the potential may be higher than you think. The swing vote, ironically, would be the rural vote. If they see how urban planning preserves their way of life, they just might get behind this. And it isn't a new tax.

Only in the same way that banning gay marriage "preserves" the sanctity of straight marriage: It doesn't.

Seriously, I lived in rural GA for 12 years. The people who live there couldn't give a rat's a$$ about urban planning or anything else city folk do. It has NO impact on their way of life.

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Instead of this Tea-Party-esque rant, perhaps we could more rationally explore WHY people would want to sell their land. Are land values dropping, and they want to sell before the values are reduced to near nothing? As development continues to expand, is it better to be one of the first to sell? Is the productivity of the land decreasing? Are they getting excellent offers? Without further exploration, who knows.

Instead of applying political labels where they don't exist, perhaps we could more rationally read BobKovacs' post. He told you why people are selling.

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

The "rural vote"? You mean the vote of the very people who are selling their land to the developers who are building the developments that you're trying to control? The folks who are pocketing huge sums of cash by selling the land that's been in their family for decades, that they can't make a living off of anymore because farming doesn't pay the bills?

He is dead serious about this. People are literally starving in rural GA because their family business no longer feeds their families. They have land, but no money. If they are lucky, they can make enough on the livestock to keep feeding more livestock, but that still won't pay the bills. And there aren't a lot of jobs out there either. Given the choice between lingering on inherited land and suffering, manufacturing meth, or selling to a developer (to build McMansions or strip malls) it's not hard to understand why they sell.

[SLIMMACKEY]

Originally Posted by JPD

1. Depends how you define "bang for the buck." Some might define it as a large house and large yard. Others might define it as walkability and closeness to amenities. So this "fact" is not a fact at all. It's just an opinion.

2. The operating and maintenance costs of a vehicle are only equal on a per mile basis. People who live intown tend to drive significantly fewer miles than people in the suburbs, so for the intowners, the cost of operating and maintaining a car is lower than it is for people in the suburbs.

So a suburban home with the yard and less street noise that is priced </= an intown home is not more bang for the buck? Personal preferences, which are truly subjective and thus truly opinion, set aside and real world economics looked at. Please....Read my whole post before you try and say that I offered my opinion as fact. So personal prejudice aside and dollars and sense put in place, a home in a quiete neighborhood with a garage and yard at a givin price is a better value than an apartment or smaller home at that same price indez in another locale. Period.

The second "fact" that you pose is truly subjective thus incorrect. No matter where you live, intown or suburb, there are inherent carrying costs for a vehicle: insurance, gas, payment, maintenance, ect....the payment cost is not always present as I dont have a payment for any of my vehicles in ATL or NYC so that cost is a savings for me personally.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

So a suburban home with the yard and less street noise that is priced </= an intown home is not more bang for the buck? Personal preferences, which are truly subjective and thus truly opinion, set aside and real world economics looked at. Please....Read my whole post before you try and say that I offered my opinion as fact. So personal prejudice aside and dollars and sense put in place, a home in a quiete neighborhood with a garage and yard at a givin price is a better value than an apartment or smaller home at that same price indez in another locale. Period.

The second "fact" that you pose is truly subjective thus incorrect. No matter where you live, intown or suburb, there are inherent carrying costs for a vehicle: insurance, gas, payment, maintenance, ect....the payment cost is not always present as I dont have a payment for any of my vehicles in ATL or NYC so that cost is a savings for me personally.

I think you need to learn to read more carefully.

[Onthemove2014]

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

So a suburban home with the yard and less street noise that is priced </= an intown home is not more bang for the buck? Personal preferences, which are truly subjective and thus truly opinion, set aside and real world economics looked at. Please....Read my whole post before you try and say that I offered my opinion as fact. So personal prejudice aside and dollars and sense put in place, a home in a quiete neighborhood with a garage and yard at a givin price is a better value than an apartment or smaller home at that same price indez in another locale. Period.

No, he had a point here. If you could care less about having a yard and a "quiet" neighborhood then the "value" is much less to you personally. Dollars and (s)cents don't mean anything if you don't want what is being sold. I am sure I could by 3 pairs of walmart brand shoes for the cost of a pair Nikes but if I don't like the Walmart shoes then they aren't worth anything to me regardless of dollar amount. I'd much rather have ammenties within walking or very short driving distances to me then to have a cheap yard and "quiet neighborhood". Value is totally subject. Everyone doesn't value the same things in life.

That is why many people ditch that lifestyle for the more urban one. They don't value it like you apparently do regardless of the supposed "bang for buck" you get on land.

Originally Posted by SLIMMACKEY

The second "fact" that you pose is truly subjective thus incorrect. No matter where you live, intown or suburb, there are inherent carrying costs for a vehicle: insurance, gas, payment, maintenance, ect....the payment cost is not always present as I dont have a payment for any of my vehicles in ATL or NYC so that cost is a savings for me personally.

There is a cost but if you only have to drive 4 miles once or twice a week because you walk or take publc transit to work and the store then obviously all thing being equal, your car will be much cheaper to maintain and gas up.

[ATLTJL]

For the record, I drive way more than I used to when I lived intown, but I haven't seen my car costs skyrocket. Gas costs more....for sure, no denying that.

But I have found that I get much greater mileage crusing on the highway at 60mph than I did in stop and go traffic on city streets. Also, I drive on nice interstates instead of pothole city roads, so I don't have to get a front end alignment every 6 months like I did intown. I think city driving may be better than highway driving on hybrids, but I don't have one of those yet.

If you really sit down and do a dollars to dollars analysis, you might find that the cost savings of what you describe, while present, isn't as great as you might think. Additional wear & tear from stop and go city driving plus the cost of paying mass transit fares add up to make the differential less.