Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These bills were sponsored by developer-backed politicians. 6 pubs and 4 dems, They used certain buzzwords to make it look like an ‘affordable housing’ thing, but make no mistake, this thing is backed by developers and AirBnB type companies to maximize their ability to build the most profitable options for them. Doing away with single-family zoning so a developer can stick a quad-plex on the empty lot next to your house even though the local municipality had determined that the area was best able to only handle single family homes is a recipe for overbuilt traffic and resource snarling chaos.
If you build housing near jobs, car traffic will go down or stabilize as more people get to work on foot, by bus, or on their bike. Local municipalities fail to build enough housing because they're pressured by homeowners who put selfish interests (the rising price of their own home, resource hoarding, etc.) over those of the common good.
The solutions are available, but no one will be willing to go in 100%. NIMBY-ism is strong everywhere. RE developers and politicians are in the same bed, they aren't willing to give up on their cash cows.
1. Re-zone to create dense urban areas. Literally stop building SFH, period. If the land is sold or bought, make sure what gets build is a duplex, triplex, quad or whatever.
2. Allow the existing SFH to build ADU's, and get the density that way.
3. Pass a law to make sure that every new development has affordable units. Nurses, teachers, police officers and firefighters should live somewhere and they should live close to where they work. Make sure that at least 10% (or whatever is allowed) of everything you build is set aside as affordable housing units.
3. Create a huge and reliable network of public transit. Not everyone would want to live in a dense urban area, or will be able to afford it, but that shouldn't stop them from being employed in these areas. Someone can afford a small house somewhere in Bahama NC or Graham NC should be able to get on a bus and get to Durham DT or RDU reliably by 8am in the morning. They should also be able to get back home reliably by 6pm or 11pm.
You DO know that property owners historically have rights, too?
And, that detached homes are greatly desired by the majority of buyers?
You DO know that property owners historically have rights, too?
And, that detached homes are greatly desired by the majority of buyers?
This ain't Sim City. It is folks' lives.
To be fair, if the Triangle built a commuter rail with tons of housing in a few dense, walkable nodes built around the stations, the vast majority of housing would still be single family housing.
My question is why must we continue to be a one-trick pony when it comes to our housing and transportation options? The Triangle does a fine job of already attracting those who come for post WW2 American living; why not mix it up more and create a more dynamic community that attracts those who don't want that sort of lifestyle?
To be fair, if the Triangle built a commuter rail with tons of housing in a few dense, walkable nodes built around the stations, the vast majority of housing would still be single family housing.
My question is why must we continue to be a one-trick pony when it comes to our housing and transportation options? The Triangle does a fine job of already attracting those who come for post WW2 American living; why not mix it up more and create a more dynamic community that attracts those who don't want that sort of lifestyle?
You are not wrong.
We ARE restrictive. But, the majority should have some sway over the SimCitiers and twiddlers who think they know how all should live, and should live under fiat.
Most people I talk to settle for townhomes or condos. Not all, but most would consider them a compromise.
The concept that I should not be able legally to rebuild my home in case of a natural disaster, fire, obsolecence, in the current location is just proposed extreme overreach.
You are not wrong.
We ARE restrictive. But, the majority should have some sway over the SimCitiers and twiddlers who think they know how all should live, and should live under fiat.
Most people I talk to settle for townhomes or condos. Not all, but most would consider them a compromise.
The concept that I should not be able legally to rebuild my home in case of a natural disaster, fire, obsolecence, in the current location is just proposed extreme overreach.
But you're the one who's arguing that you know how others should live. Even if we make it easier for people to build multifamily houses, most people will still choose to live in single-family homes. They'll just have neighbors who made other choices, for a variety of reasons. My neighborhood, built before current zoning rules were put in place, has lots of ADUS, etc., and it's fine.
But you're the one who's arguing that you know how others should live....
Bogus twist.
Completely bogus.
If my neighbors' homes burn down, I want them to have the right to rebuild as they currently are.
Hatchchile proposed that that should be illegal. No more SFUs, unless they want to relocate to the end of a train or bus line.
You DO know that property owners historically have rights, too?
And, that detached homes are greatly desired by the majority of buyers?
This ain't Sim City. It is folks' lives.
Where did I say to do anything limiting with existing SFH? You can change the zoning for the stuff that is planned to be build in the future. Those who own their homes obviously will keep them and should be able to sell them for however much and whenever they want. The new owner, the individual should be able to do whatever they want with that house. However, if the developer buys it and wants to demo and rebuild a 5 million dollar SFH so that a couple of yuppies can live there -- he or she should not be allowed to do it. The developers should be forced to build at least a duplex instead of it.
You are not wrong.
We ARE restrictive. But, the majority should have some sway over the SimCitiers and twiddlers who think they know how all should live, and should live under fiat.
Most people I talk to settle for townhomes or condos. Not all, but most would consider them a compromise.
The concept that I should not be able legally to rebuild my home in case of a natural disaster, fire, obsolecence, in the current location is just proposed extreme overreach.
No one is saying anything about SFH. We are talking about the new development. The individual people and their property should be obviously protected by various laws, etc. They should be allowed to do whatever with their house. However, the city should stop allowing developers -- anyone who is not buying the house for a primary residence -- to gut a SFH and put up another SFH. Obviously, it'll be hard to do and oversee. But, if the whip doesn't work, go with the carrot. Give these damn developers some incentives to put a multi-family home.
Also, all of this is about making the urban core more dense. If someone doesn't want to see his or her neighbors, there are always suburbs or exurbs. People need to get used to the idea that if they want their child's teacher to live close to their school, they should be okay living in a dense city.
If my neighbors' homes burn down, I want them to have the right to rebuild as they currently are.
Hatchchile proposed that that should be illegal. No more SFUs, unless they want to relocate to the end of a train or bus line.
Oh—I disagree on that point. I don't think people should be forced to build multi-family homes. But, they should be permitted to do so if they want, and the land should be taxed accordingly. Removing single-family zoning from the mix of approved land uses increases the mix of housing available, which is good for everyone (except those who profit by limiting the amount of housing).
Also, all of this is about making the urban core more dense. If someone doesn't want to see his or her neighbors, there are always suburbs or exurbs. People need to get used to the idea that if they want their child's teacher to live close to their school, they should be okay living in a dense city.
But what if the school isn't in the dense city? Say someone moves here and they get a job teaching at Githens. They shouldn't be allowed to buy a single-family home? This I am not for. Maybe they will have to commute from Graham given the rising costs of real estate, which is not wonderful either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
