U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2013, 11:42 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,115,006 times
Reputation: 3118

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
If you've been to one of these public hearings, you've been to all of them.
Ain't that the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2013, 07:12 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,544,137 times
Reputation: 746
The hearings do get repetitive quickly. I'd put condo and townhouse owners in an intermediate category--more likely to fuss than renters, but definitely less than single family home owners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 08:03 PM
 
9,522 posts, read 14,865,612 times
Reputation: 9769
There was a 55+ community that got turned down near my old place in Pennsylvania. That hearing probably looked a little different; no worries about schools. The big issue is the developer had the bright idea to site it between an existing townhouse community (mine) and a McMansion development. Only thing is, the reason that strip of land had never been developed is it was at the bottom of a little valley with a creek running through it. I'm not sure how he expected to get a variance to develop on that, but he didn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 10:04 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,544,137 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
There was a 55+ community that got turned down near my old place in Pennsylvania. That hearing probably looked a little different; no worries about schools. The big issue is the developer had the bright idea to site it between an existing townhouse community (mine) and a McMansion development. Only thing is, the reason that strip of land had never been developed is it was at the bottom of a little valley with a creek running through it. I'm not sure how he expected to get a variance to develop on that, but he didn't.
Since prohibiting all economic uses of a property has been deemed an unconstitutional taking, what was considered to be the economic use of the site?

Last edited by Carlite; 02-09-2013 at 10:05 PM.. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 09:36 AM
 
9,522 posts, read 14,865,612 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
Since prohibiting all economic uses of a property has been deemed an unconstitutional taking, what was considered to be the economic use of the site?
It was originally part of a farm, a scrap left over from when the farms were subdivided, so it's not like it was a taking; there was no change in regs, rather it was never considered usable for dense residential development. There are parts of the site which are developable, and since then some single family homes have been built on it, and there's a part of it zoned commercial (but unlikely to be developed).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 02:31 PM
 
12,313 posts, read 15,224,755 times
Reputation: 8121
Certainly true of sports stadia. In a suburb almost everyone in town is opposed. In a large city only those living nearby complain. Furthermore the teams want the city or suburb to "invest" in it, which is a bigger risk for a town of 50,000 than one of 500,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 02:41 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,115,006 times
Reputation: 3118
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Certainly true of sports stadia. In a suburb almost everyone in town is opposed. In a large city only those living nearby complain. Furthermore the teams want the city or suburb to "invest" in it, which is a bigger risk for a town of 50,000 than one of 500,000.
See: Pontiac Silverdome

Silverdome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Built: 1975, $55 million
Sold: 2009, $550,000
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 10:03 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,544,137 times
Reputation: 746
This is something that Oakland actually deserves bashing for--spending a lot of its limited municipal funds to bring the Raiders back.

The controversy over the would be new football stadium in Downtown LA has been complex. There have been some environmentalists who support putting the stadium in the city core, rather than 25 miles in the City of Industry, per a competing proposal. There have been NIMBYs who can't believe that the stadium can get 25% of its fans in by means other than driving alone, even though it's been done elsewhere. There are residents of nearby low income neighborhoods that want some of the income from a stadium to flow their way, since they'll inevitably get impacts. The city approved it, but now the developers have to go out and find an NFL team to move there--they won't built it unless they do. Apart from transit improvements, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of public money it, thankfully.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top