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)
 
Old 04-10-2014, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Care to identify what state you're licensed to practice law in?
I didn't think so.

The "zoning laws" in this state say that the counties have NO zoning authority (there are some exceptions limited to areas near military bases, reservoirs, airports - essentially areas that come under federal regulatory provisions).

Zoning is a function of municipalities. If you don't live in a city then you don't have to deal with zoning in this state. Some cities also don't have zoning authority.

You complain about zoning and zoning limitations in the city? Move out of the city. Kinda paradoxical for urbanists to have to leave the city to pursue dreams of "density".
Which state is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2014, 07:19 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Which state is that?
Texas or 14 other states, source doesn't list the other states:

Counties lack zoning power | Amarillo.com | Amarillo Globe-News

Massachusetts counties have no zoning power, but it's a moot point as most of the state has no county government. So it'd be silly if it counts as one of the 14.

Texas is one of 14 states that withholds zoning powers from its counties, but that issue could be up for debate in this year's Legislature, officials said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Texas or 14 other states, source doesn't list the other states:

Counties lack zoning power | Amarillo.com | Amarillo Globe-News

Massachusetts counties have no zoning power, but it's a moot point as most of the state has no county government. So it'd be silly if it counts as one of the 14.

Texas is one of 14 states that withholds zoning powers from its counties, but that issue could be up for debate in this year's Legislature, officials said.
Texas, that would make a lot of sense. I imagine the other 13 states are sparsely populated states?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 07:51 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,859,209 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
So because your parents' hometown had a height restriction for the sake of firefighting equipment, you assume that all height restrictions are in place because of that?

Very simplistic thinking, and also factually false. To name just one example, Washington DC has some of the most stringent height restrictions of any major city (we have no skyscrapers despite having the CBD of one of the top ten metro areas in the country) and it has nothing to do with firefighting equipment. Obviously if every other major city can afford to have skyscrapers compliant with fire codes, DC could too. It has to do with a bunch of other factors like preserving the skyline that are pointless to delve into in this thread. (I think these factors are BS and I oppose the DC height ban, but that's a debate that has been beaten to death in the DC forum.)

But regardless, even if this were the reason for height restrictions everywhere, it's no reason to just full stop ban buildings over a certain height. Tax those buildings to pay for the extra firefighting equipment they might necessitate.
If you don't have the equipment and training then, yes it is an reasonable restriction. DC has an height restriction because it wan't its buildings not to be dwarfed by sky scrapers. Trust me I live in an town with sky scrapers and there are so real downsides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 09:16 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,350,485 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That she/he may not be using.
Whether or not he/she is using it has nothing to do with "subsidizing" someone else's space. I don't see any "subsidy".

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
No, it's catering to people who live there and aren't driving. The government is not stopping developers from building more parking (with a few exceptions in downtown areas). The free market isn't building more parking, space is valuable for other things.
Or people that don't mind walking 2 miles from their parking spot elsewhere.
The "free market" hasn't been free for quite some time. If developers had a choice they likely also wouldn't put in a lot of features for health and safety or practical use. There's always a next greater fool that will eventually buy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
As for streetlife, a street full of pedestrians present a different environment that full of just cars.
SF streets are full of both (sidewalks with pedestrians, streets with cars and often pedestrians) However, I wouldn't go there to see the "street people" or the cars. I would be going to a shop or one of the wharfs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That's an odd definition.
Well it stems from the title of the article cited:
Downtown traffic seems worse, but studies show it moves faster - SFGate

More cars moving faster through the same space is not less traffic.

Last edited by IC_deLight; 04-10-2014 at 09:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 12:24 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,168 posts, read 29,669,595 times
Reputation: 26656
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Whether or not he/she is using it has nothing to do with "subsidizing" someone else's space. I don't see any "subsidy".
If your building comes with a parking space per unit, and you don't use the parking space, your price is subsidizing parking. That parking spot you don't use isn't "free space" for you. If you setup lawn furniture or a couch in your parking space you'd be in trouble. When apartments unbundle the parking spaces, monthly fees rarely if ever cover the true cost of parking and maintenance. So by requiring a minimum number of parking spaces, all dwellers are subsidizing parking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 12:33 AM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
17,399 posts, read 21,239,668 times
Reputation: 24221
I'm an avid reader, with multiple subscriptions for magazines, and you can't drive a car and read at the same time! And how can you get a traffic violation by riding the bus!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2014, 11:27 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Posted without comment. A few might be slightly gross to some:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alannaokun/p...-transit-thing

favorites are 11,13,15 and 21
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 11:00 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,737,509 times
Reputation: 32304
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
If your building comes with a parking space per unit, and you don't use the parking space, your price is subsidizing parking. That parking spot you don't use isn't "free space" for you. If you setup lawn furniture or a couch in your parking space you'd be in trouble. When apartments unbundle the parking spaces, monthly fees rarely if ever cover the true cost of parking and maintenance. So by requiring a minimum number of parking spaces, all dwellers are subsidizing parking.
And if all the units in the building come with built-in stoves and some bachelor never uses his stove, it is the same situation as with a parking space that is not used. I agree that the cost of providing a parking space is greater than zero, i.e., that it costs something, but only people with an ideological axe to grind about automobile use are going to get upset about such trivia.

In our society having a car is normal, and that is true even though not everyone has one. In some societies that may not be the case. Just like in our society having indoor plumbing is normal, and that is true even though not everyone has it, at least in rural areas. In some societies that may not be the case.

We don't see people railing about indoor plumbing, yet we see them railing about car use. If people don't want to own a car, they are free to move to a location where being car free works out for them. This is not unheard of. So what is the big deal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2014, 02:04 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,168 posts, read 29,669,595 times
Reputation: 26656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
And if all the units in the building come with built-in stoves and some bachelor never uses his stove, it is the same situation as with a parking space that is not used. I agree that the cost of providing a parking space is greater than zero, i.e., that it costs something, but only people with an ideological axe to grind about automobile use are going to get upset about such trivia.

In our society having a car is normal, and that is true even though not everyone has one. In some societies that may not be the case. Just like in our society having indoor plumbing is normal, and that is true even though not everyone has it, at least in rural areas. In some societies that may not be the case.

We don't see people railing about indoor plumbing, yet we see them railing about car use. If people don't want to own a car, they are free to move to a location where being car free works out for them. This is not unheard of. So what is the big deal?
It costs $15-50k to build a parking space. This isn't factoring in any ongoing maintence. A nice stove is $1000. Let's pretend the developer likes to make 2-3x for profit, then at the low end each housing unit is 30k more, and in order to afford to live there, each resident needs to make an extra 6-8k per year using typical debt ratios. See how parking impacts housing affordability. Why not have the car owners buy their spots instead of making it "free" so more people can afford to live there. And less parking means more space for housing units.

No one is saying no one can have a car ever, but looking at trends, we need to stop subsidizing a lifestyle less and less people want. In my region, the riders of the commuter rail that serves Silicon Valley had an average income of about $115k. And 40% of the riders do not have a car, are you sure that cars are "normal?"
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