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 08-06-2014, 10:39 PM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,525,606 times
Reputation: 4632

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Perhaps you can come up with a label you prefer?

Let's see:
1. You want to use a government to prevent owners from developing their property
2. You do not wish this government to compensate the owners for this prohibition
3. You expect the same government to tax the owners of the property
4. You expect the taxes paid by those owners to go to your benefit - or at least to the benefit of someone other than the owners
5. You expect this to be the subject of a vote by folks other than the affected owners

I'm sure you'll get the beneficiaries of this program to support it. Makes the democratic process a mere ceremonial event.

Feel free to label this form of government you want to impose on other property owners.
You've pigenholed me based on your narrow ideals, and completely missed many of the points I made. That's fine, but I don't think it's worth discussing Urban Planning with someone who is determined to force others into whatever little box you decide you feel the need to oppose.

And since you missed it, I am opposed to the creation of 'affordable' housing on the edge largely because it's NOT self supporting. If people who can pay their own way decide to live out there, fine - but building these large semi-rural communities on the cheap expecting the state, county and other municipalities to come in and spend money maintaining them is one of the most foolish ways of creating 'affordable' housing. Yet that's what has happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2014, 04:18 AM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,326,677 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy You Met Once View Post
First, suburbs are wasteful. You might not personally like city living, but it's way cheaper and more efficient to build, wire, heat, and install plumbing for twenty small units in an apartment building than twenty separate McMansions. Then the people in the McMansions have to keep the lawns green or the homeowner's association will be on their ass - but the amount of water, fertilizer and chemicals that go into maintaining lawns alone is unbelievable. Then the water can't be reused, because it's contaminated with cow poop and insect poison. And space is limited, so to keep building suburban developments, you have to take it from either forests or farms.
You urbanites kill me.

If cities are so financially efficient, why do most of them have a difficult time balancing their budgets? Toronto is a perfect example of a metropolis that has always had great difficulty supporting itself.

We live in a Toronto suburb in a modest older bungalow and without any kind of HOA. Making it sound as if all suburbanites live in McMansions within gated communities with an HOA jackbooting around like the Gestapo is as ignorant as claiming that all urbanites live in roach-infested, crime-ridden tenements in close proximity to rats, gangs, hookers, junkies and other undesirable street grease.

A great deal of Toronto's "historic" housing is large single-family Victorian houses, not high-density highrises. I really don't see how this setup could possibly be less wasteful than where I live in the suburbs. Older homes are notoriously energy-inefficient as they were built during a time when simply "turning up the heat" was an acceptable solution to drafty, poorly insulated houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2014, 06:35 AM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,355,979 times
Reputation: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
You've pigenholed me based on your narrow ideals, and completely missed many of the points I made. That's fine, but I don't think it's worth discussing Urban Planning with someone who is determined to force others into whatever little box you decide you feel the need to oppose.

And since you missed it, I am opposed to the creation of 'affordable' housing on the edge largely because it's NOT self supporting. If people who can pay their own way decide to live out there, fine - but building these large semi-rural communities on the cheap expecting the state, county and other municipalities to come in and spend money maintaining them is one of the most foolish ways of creating 'affordable' housing. Yet that's what has happened.

What "narrow ideals"? That the property owners have rights in their own property? That the "city dwellers" (such as yourself) have an odd view of "democracy" where they vote and the affected property owners have no say?

With respect to "self supporting": You expect the taxes from the property owners there to go to the area you live in? Which area is the one that is not "self supporting"? Seems to me that you promote a scheme where other local governments should simply leech off of the property owners on "the edge" for your benefit. I don't see the "self support" you tout.

With respect to lack of "self support" - you could make the same argument about any portion of the city you are in.

Whatever "support" you are attempting to deny homeowners "on the edge" was probably illusory any way. Local governments long ago neglected their obligations to their constituents and tax payers. Typically now, the developer of the area must pay for the installation of the road, utilities, etc. within the subdivision. The housing prices will have the cost of this infrastructure built into their prices - which artificially inflates the tax base of your local government at the expense of these homeowners. The local government might take over the road for maintenance. Utility companies, etc. connect to the edge of the subdivision and may take over ownership of the pipelines and electrical lines depending on the nature of the subdivision. Almost certainly all the housing will be saddled with involuntary membership HOAs and perpetual liens. Not really the free ride you seem to believe these homeowners would have. Not to mention that the property taxes on their property are going into a general coffer that serves "other areas" like where you live. In short, I doubt where you live "paid its own way" and it is still sucking tax dollars from other areas that aren't provided similar services.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2014, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,955,665 times
Reputation: 10561
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Perhaps you can come up with a label you prefer?

Let's see:
1. You want to use a government to prevent owners from developing their property
2. You do not wish this government to compensate the owners for this prohibition
3. You expect the same government to tax the owners of the property
4. You expect the taxes paid by those owners to go to your benefit - or at least to the benefit of someone other than the owners
5. You expect this to be the subject of a vote by folks other than the affected owners

I'm sure you'll get the beneficiaries of this program to support it. Makes the democratic process a mere ceremonial event.

Feel free to label this form of government you want to impose on other property owners.
Just out of curiosity, since you're on a roll here, are you also opposed to suburbs setting zoning rules such as minimum lot sizes, maximum lot coverage, minimum setbacks, parking minimums, single-use zoning, etc?

Personally speaking I think all of those rules (which also restrict property owners from developing their property as they see fit), are a lot more damaging than simply allowing new development to continue unabated into farmland. I'd happily sign away any ability to have an urban growth boundary in return for a loosening of some of the strictures outlined above. After all, if denser infill in established suburbs was allowed, there would be less of a market for exurban homes in general (there still would be one of course, but it wouldn't be as strong a market).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2014, 07:37 AM
 
8,199 posts, read 6,140,110 times
Reputation: 11736
I think what the OP is getting at are that the New Urbanist types are often pretentious know-it-alls who never miss an opportunity to share that are much smarter than the ignorant rube hicks that choose to live in places as uncouth as the suburbs and rural areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2014, 07:46 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
45,992 posts, read 42,048,502 times
Reputation: 14811
Some people can find pretention in anyone who tries to have different tastes. Those types are often as pretentious as those they criticize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2014, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,341,270 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
I think what the OP is getting at are that the New Urbanist types are often pretentious know-it-alls who never miss an opportunity to share that are much smarter than the ignorant rube hicks that choose to live in places as uncouth as the suburbs and rural areas.
Thank goodness for this contribution! Perception of New Urbanist attitudes by outwardly rude posters has most certainly added to the conversation of urban lifestyles and growing interest/pressure within the confines of urban planning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2014, 08:02 AM
 
Location: West Madison^WMHT
3,282 posts, read 3,139,472 times
Reputation: 4091
Talking I am okay with my immediate neighbors voting on zoning rules impacting the immediate neighborhood

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Just out of curiosity, since you're on a roll here, are you also opposed to suburbs setting zoning rules such as minimum lot sizes, maximum lot coverage, minimum setbacks, parking minimums, single-use zoning, etc?
Some towns have almost no zoning on the books, others have more restrictions, but don't enforce most of them, others have and enforce very strict rules. Diversity is great.

Quote:
Personally speaking I think all of those rules (which also restrict property owners from developing their property as they see fit), are a lot more damaging than simply allowing new development to continue unabated into farmland. I'd happily sign away any ability to have an urban growth boundary in return for a loosening of some of the strictures outlined above. After all, if denser infill in established suburbs was allowed, there would be less of a market for exurban homes in general (there still would be one of course, but it wouldn't be as strong a market).
I'm actually perfectly OK with the residents of a suburb or town setting local zoning that directly impacts the people who voted for the zoning change. If I don't like the way a particular suburb restricts property owners in that suburb, I can vote with my ballot or vote with my feet.

Of course New Hampshire has 1.4 million residents in 234 towns, all funded primarily by property taxes, so in this state all politics truly are local.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2014, 08:06 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
45,992 posts, read 42,048,502 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonesuch View Post
Some towns have almost no zoning on the books, others have more restrictions, but don't enforce most of them, others have and enforce very strict rules. Diversity is great.
eschaton is responding to IC_Delight who is critizing development restrictions, urban growth boundaries and other anti-sprawl laws as a violation of property rights but eschaton asks if he minds the property rights restrictions of anti-density zoning as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2014, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
2,377 posts, read 2,608,777 times
Reputation: 1482
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
Maybe it is the wave of the future in the short term, but I think it will come full circle again when YOUR children decide they don't want to live in a population dense area and want room to spread out like their grandparents did.
From my experience most who grew up truly urban have no desire to move out of the city. The dilemma seems to be much more with kids who grew up suburban not knowing what the difference really is to live in the city and then just declaring it not worth it. Essentially it's the same phenomena responsible for keeping people who grew up rural - rural, or poor - poor, 3rd world - 3rd world, etc. There is a very significant drop in social life, activity, interaction, and culture when you leave real urban for suburban. The reasons both sides don't want to move to other are not the same. Culture etc does have value and it's worth more than a few empty extra rooms and 5 cars with no where to go.
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