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 08-07-2014, 01:55 PM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,501,505 times
Reputation: 4632

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
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.
Perfect example if what I was talking about in my last post. You made most of this up based on things in your own head, not what I said. This is just you up on a soap box, not a real discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2014, 05:54 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,681 times
Reputation: 3030
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?

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).
The problem is that you are negotiating with a token (urban growth boundary) that wasn't yours to begin with.

Please define "suburb" since it's not clear whether you are referring to a geographic area, the people within that area, some unit of local government (city, county, ...), etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2014, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
The problem is that you are negotiating with a token (urban growth boundary) that wasn't yours to begin with.
I know, but my broader point is while the restrictions on development which are supposed to "urbanize" might be pretty new, zoning in general is a clear restriction on development, as it restricts in numerous ways what a property owner can build on their property.

FWIW, I don't think restrictions to stop exurban development will do anything to promote cities. I just think they'll make the cost of housing in general more expensive. Anything which restricts supply of housing units will cause the price to rise, and if there aren't enough easily developable parcels in desirable urban areas, it's not like cities will even benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Please define "suburb" since it's not clear whether you are referring to a geographic area, the people within that area, some unit of local government (city, county, ...), etc.
I kept it vague on purpose. Generally speaking, zoning is the responsibility of the local government, which could be a city, county, town, etc. But unofficially neighborhoods (or rather, busybodies in the neighborhoods) within a larger municipality use the zoning code to defeat projects they don't want. I've seen many a project delayed for years or even scuttled entirely by a half-dozen homeowners when the developer needs a variance or two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2014, 09:34 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,681 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I know, but my broader point is while the restrictions on development which are supposed to "urbanize" might be pretty new, zoning in general is a clear restriction on development, as it restricts in numerous ways what a property owner can build on their property.

FWIW, I don't think restrictions to stop exurban development will do anything to promote cities. I just think they'll make the cost of housing in general more expensive. Anything which restricts supply of housing units will cause the price to rise, and if there aren't enough easily developable parcels in desirable urban areas, it's not like cities will even benefit.
That's why I was stating it was economic protectionism for existing property owners. Only works as a bail out strategy because anyone seeking to relocate within will have to pay the artificially inflated prices too. The cities benefit from higher property tax revenue. That's one reason municipalities push for hamster style housing such as vertical condos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 05:31 AM
 
4,189 posts, read 4,395,853 times
Reputation: 2228
It is about control and money. The millions that fled the urban areas starting after WW 2 took their money with them and the old political hacks that ran those cities lost control, power and money. They want it back. Unfortunately, until the cities/urban areas rid themselves of the poor most people won't move back. The poor are just too much of a drain on society and everyone knows it. I would not mind living in Wash DC area, but each time we look we see too many poor people just "hanging out", crime, terrible schools tossed into the mix too. It's too bad that we just can't get political leaders in this cities/urban areas just bus the poor to other places in America where they can get a job, start moving up in society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 07:04 AM
 
56,538 posts, read 80,824,285 times
Reputation: 12490
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka View Post
It is about control and money. The millions that fled the urban areas starting after WW 2 took their money with them and the old political hacks that ran those cities lost control, power and money. They want it back. Unfortunately, until the cities/urban areas rid themselves of the poor most people won't move back. The poor are just too much of a drain on society and everyone knows it. I would not mind living in Wash DC area, but each time we look we see too many poor people just "hanging out", crime, terrible schools tossed into the mix too. It's too bad that we just can't get political leaders in this cities/urban areas just bus the poor to other places in America where they can get a job, start moving up in society.
Ironically, many of these poor people come from people that moved from where they were, whether it was within or outside of the country. A lot of the jobs those folks could do are gone and considering that manufacturing jobs in the US peaked in 1979, it may be a matter of bringing the training for more relevant skills to the educational systems within these cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
The cities benefit from higher property tax revenue. That's one reason municipalities push for hamster style housing such as vertical condos.
While it is true that cities benefit in terms of tax revenue from the densest feasible development (particularly if residential and commercial are interspaced) dense development doesn't get built unless the market can bear it. Thus ultimately it's the developers (and tenants/homeowners) pushing for the dense development, and the cities getting out of the way and letting them do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 10:28 AM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,501,505 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
That's why I was stating it was economic protectionism for existing property owners. Only works as a bail out strategy because anyone seeking to relocate within will have to pay the artificially inflated prices too. The cities benefit from higher property tax revenue. That's one reason municipalities push for hamster style housing such as vertical condos.
I have to ask why you think the "hamster style housing" is so expensive compared to the SFH's out by the urban growth boundary if it's so undesirable. The person that spends $500K on a condo or town home could have gained land and saved money buying one of the $300K houses out on the edge. It's not unusual to see "hamster houses" selling for $350+ sq ft, while rural homes of the same age/size typically sell for under $150/sq ft.

Basic supply/demand would lead to the conclusion that the 'far out' houses are more plentiful and less desirable, otherwise people would pay more for them. Likewise, the supply relative to demand would seem to indicate that the growth boundary isn't restricting supply in a meaningful way. Add to that, the houses out near the boundary have much higher foreclosure rates. For King County, it's on the order of 20-50 times higher! People move out there then abandon their homes at a much greater frequency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 10:30 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,681 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
While it is true that cities benefit in terms of tax revenue from the densest feasible development (particularly if residential and commercial are interspaced) dense development doesn't get built unless the market can bear it. Thus ultimately it's the developers (and tenants/homeowners) pushing for the dense development, and the cities getting out of the way and letting them do it.
That assumes a "free market".
Local governments and various environmental groups are pushing for "dense development"
It gets built when there aren't alternatives and there are certainly urbanists actively working to try to prevent alternatives. Plus there are always the gullible types that buy into these places based on hype - and there's lots of hype about the "benefits" of these places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2014, 10:47 AM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,501,505 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
That assumes a "free market".
Local governments and various environmental groups are pushing for "dense development"
It gets built when there aren't alternatives and there are certainly urbanists actively working to try to prevent alternatives. Plus there are always the gullible types that buy into these places based on hype - and there's lots of hype about the "benefits" of these places.
It gets built even when there are alternatives. Thousands of new high density units were built in my area at the time when thousands of unwanted edge homes were sitting vacant or in foreclosure.
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