There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
Yeah, the suburban sprawl is really going to cause some issues. It's not just a sustainability issue, it's also causes problems, in that it pulls resources that we need elsewhere. We have a few industries where it's just not practical to have them in the city and some of these industries are pretty vital for society. I'd also say that logistics and needs will also force the need to have essentially a few towns, where they exist because you don't want to go over X number of miles between big cities because shit happens. Essentially, suburban sprawl has created a ton of development that doesn't really offer society anything, it's not producing resources or services that can't be gotten elsewhere, nor is it ensuring that distribution flows in a way that has the minimal amount of disruption. What it does do is eat a shit ton of resources & contributes to global warming. Last I checked, we have a ton of places where fuck all has been done to service their infrastructure and things will probably get pretty dicey when that goes.
I'd wager you'd see an exodus of both businesses and people. Businesses will probably be the first to leave because they either don't want to invest money to make things work, can't afford the time or money to fix things or all of the above. After that you start getting people leaving because there are no jobs or depending on what's breaking, it's just not worth or safe for them to stick around.
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Also it's a little bit shallow to say that it's irrelevant to point to the differences between a suburb city and a suburban sprawl within specific city limits. You can still zone within city limits in a way that addresses the issues of sprawl. It doesn't HAVE to be done regionally to have a well developed city.
Also it's a little bit shallow to say that it's irrelevant to point to the differences between a suburb city and a suburban sprawl within specific city limits. You can still zone within city limits in a way that addresses the issues of sprawl. It doesn't HAVE to be done regionally to have a well developed city.
Yes it does because metro areas don't end at the city limits. This is literally why the concept of metro areas exists and why they are tracked.
Also it's a little bit shallow to say that it's irrelevant to point to the differences between a suburb city and a suburban sprawl within specific city limits. You can still zone within city limits in a way that addresses the issues of sprawl. It doesn't HAVE to be done regionally to have a well developed city.
Yes it does because metro areas don't end at the city limits. This is literally why the concept of metro areas exists and why they are tracked.
I think realistically the better system would be to have a form of government between cities and state that's at the regional level. But in the absence of that I'll take local zoning over state mandates given, again, Texas.
And I wasn't meaning to be snippy. I would like to see what incentive structures you refer to.
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
Local zoning though can increase those things. It's something the city of Austin, for example, is doing in spite of nimbyism.
Also it's a little bit shallow to say that it's irrelevant to point to the differences between a suburb city and a suburban sprawl within specific city limits. You can still zone within city limits in a way that addresses the issues of sprawl. It doesn't HAVE to be done regionally to have a well developed city.
Yes it does because metro areas don't end at the city limits. This is literally why the concept of metro areas exists and why they are tracked.
I think realistically the better system would be to have a form of government between cities and state that's at the regional level. But in the absence of that I'll take local zoning over state mandates given, again, Texas.
And I wasn't meaning to be snippy. I would like to see what incentive structures you refer to.
Increasing density and affordability generally comes at the expense if existing homeowners, who are already there and vote, in order to hope for future residents who do not yet exist and so have no voice as a constituency. It can be overcome, but it's a heavy lift because even people who are generally in favor in theory, mostly want it to happen over there.
It's why NIMBY has the MBY. It's not that they're opposed to X, X is a great idea and necessary! They just don't want X next door, but neither do the people on the other side of town.
Also it's a little bit shallow to say that it's irrelevant to point to the differences between a suburb city and a suburban sprawl within specific city limits. You can still zone within city limits in a way that addresses the issues of sprawl. It doesn't HAVE to be done regionally to have a well developed city.
Yes it does because metro areas don't end at the city limits. This is literally why the concept of metro areas exists and why they are tracked.
I think realistically the better system would be to have a form of government between cities and state that's at the regional level. But in the absence of that I'll take local zoning over state mandates given, again, Texas.
And I wasn't meaning to be snippy. I would like to see what incentive structures you refer to.
We have that in NH - regional planning consortiums. There's the option not to go with the regional recommendations, but most just take ready made laws
0
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Cutting taxes on those who have (almost) no money isn't the solution either, IMO. What we need to do is greatly increase taxes on those who have (almost) all of it.
Unfortunately, because they do, the latter can just say "nah". And that, barring significant changes, is the end of it.
Refundable tax credits are technically a tax cut but it's basically just giving people money. The poorest income earners typically pay a negative income tax rate.
Is this bad though?
No.
Just giving people money has a pretty strong multiplier
I wanted to link this video in reply to this quote when it was posted, but I couldn't find it! But, now, today, here it is!
Yes, I know it's a little simplistic, but it lays out the basic fact that austerity measures and trickle-down economics are both complete and utter horseshit and anyone who tries to tell you different is pissing in your pocket.
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
Vox's The Weeds podcast did one of their deep dives on housing the other week, and this was their conclusion. The housing problem, practically, borders on an unfixable mess, because it's handled almost entirely through a patchwork of localities, each of whom has incentive to block new housing or public transportation construction in order to protect the home values (and thus votes) of their current residents. And because it's all handled at the local level, the federal government has very few levers to pull to try and fix things.
+6
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
Vox's The Weeds podcast did one of their deep dives on housing the other week, and this was their conclusion. The housing problem, practically, borders on an unfixable mess, because it's handled almost entirely through a patchwork of localities, each of whom has incentive to block new housing or public transportation construction in order to protect the home values (and thus votes) of their current residents. And because it's all handled at the local level, the federal government has very few levers to pull to try and fix things.
Local government isn't a right though. The Fed can yell at the State to tell its towns to get their shit in order, and if the State agrees with the Feds, it can happen.
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
Vox's The Weeds podcast did one of their deep dives on housing the other week, and this was their conclusion. The housing problem, practically, borders on an unfixable mess, because it's handled almost entirely through a patchwork of localities, each of whom has incentive to block new housing or public transportation construction in order to protect the home values (and thus votes) of their current residents. And because it's all handled at the local level, the federal government has very few levers to pull to try and fix things.
In many states the towns inherit power from the states, so you could fix through highway funding etc federally - ie withholding if certain transport goals aren't met. That said, you'd need some sort of formulae around housing and transportation accessibility to assess against, which is an absolute clusterfuck of potential moral hazard
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
Vox's The Weeds podcast did one of their deep dives on housing the other week, and this was their conclusion. The housing problem, practically, borders on an unfixable mess, because it's handled almost entirely through a patchwork of localities, each of whom has incentive to block new housing or public transportation construction in order to protect the home values (and thus votes) of their current residents. And because it's all handled at the local level, the federal government has very few levers to pull to try and fix things.
Local government isn't a right though. The Fed can yell at the State to tell its towns to get their shit in order, and if the State agrees with the Feds, it can happen.
Yeah, the one place they identified as potential pressure point was at the state government/governor level. California's governor has made gestures about enforcing laws on the books requiring cities to plan for their housing needs. The federal government hasn't really shown interest in working on this, so advocacy organizations forcing this as a state-level issue is likely the best hope for movement forward.
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
Vox's The Weeds podcast did one of their deep dives on housing the other week, and this was their conclusion. The housing problem, practically, borders on an unfixable mess, because it's handled almost entirely through a patchwork of localities, each of whom has incentive to block new housing or public transportation construction in order to protect the home values (and thus votes) of their current residents. And because it's all handled at the local level, the federal government has very few levers to pull to try and fix things.
Local government isn't a right though. The Fed can yell at the State to tell its towns to get their shit in order, and if the State agrees with the Feds, it can happen.
I'm pretty sure these areas also have a lot of power at the state level, and really the government coming in and harming people's home values isn't going to be very popular with a lot of people.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I feel like saying it can work at the state level -- but not the local level is ignoring that state entities can be as subject to interest group capture as local governments can be when it comes to zoning. And there have been more cases of local government a saying "fuck off" to NIMBYs lately (Minneapolis, Austin, etc). So I don't really see why the state has to be the one to do it and not local government.
I feel like saying it can work at the state level -- but not the local level is ignoring that state entities can be as subject to interest group capture as local governments can be when it comes to zoning. And there have been more cases of local government a saying "fuck off" to NIMBYs lately (Minneapolis, Austin, etc). So I don't really see why the state has to be the one to do it and not local government.
Because urban planning requires organization at a larger level then a single neighbourhood or city or town or suburb. It doesn't matter what X area does if literally one block over they are doing something completely different.
This is the basic issue that created things like, random easy example, white flight. Other examples would be attempts to create public transportation systems and the needed density to properly support them. Can't build a good network when one of the suburbs along the way is saying "Fuck you, no transit here and no increased density."
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
Vox's The Weeds podcast did one of their deep dives on housing the other week, and this was their conclusion. The housing problem, practically, borders on an unfixable mess, because it's handled almost entirely through a patchwork of localities, each of whom has incentive to block new housing or public transportation construction in order to protect the home values (and thus votes) of their current residents. And because it's all handled at the local level, the federal government has very few levers to pull to try and fix things.
Local government isn't a right though. The Fed can yell at the State to tell its towns to get their shit in order, and if the State agrees with the Feds, it can happen.
I'm pretty sure these areas also have a lot of power at the state level, and really the government coming in and harming people's home values isn't going to be very popular with a lot of people.
Hence the continued existence of the problem. Because it's not like an organized plan, it's just the confluence of a bunch of local-level self-interested parties.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I feel like saying it can work at the state level -- but not the local level is ignoring that state entities can be as subject to interest group capture as local governments can be when it comes to zoning. And there have been more cases of local government a saying "fuck off" to NIMBYs lately (Minneapolis, Austin, etc). So I don't really see why the state has to be the one to do it and not local government.
Because urban planning requires organization at a larger level then a single neighbourhood or city or town or suburb. It doesn't matter what X area does if literally one block over they are doing something completely different.
This is the basic issue that created things like, random easy example, white flight. Other examples would be attempts to create public transportation systems and the needed density to properly support them. Can't build a good network when one of the suburbs along the way is saying "Fuck you, no transit here and no increased density."
One of the reasons why WMATA has such trouble is they have to deal with 2 states and the District.
I feel like saying it can work at the state level -- but not the local level is ignoring that state entities can be as subject to interest group capture as local governments can be when it comes to zoning. And there have been more cases of local government a saying "fuck off" to NIMBYs lately (Minneapolis, Austin, etc). So I don't really see why the state has to be the one to do it and not local government.
Because urban planning requires organization at a larger level then a single neighbourhood or city or town or suburb. It doesn't matter what X area does if literally one block over they are doing something completely different.
This is the basic issue that created things like, random easy example, white flight. Other examples would be attempts to create public transportation systems and the needed density to properly support them. Can't build a good network when one of the suburbs along the way is saying "Fuck you, no transit here".
I don't think you're laying out the argument clearly enough for me. Like, I kind of see what you're saying but not entirely.
So if what area X does doesn't matter if area Y a certain distance away does something different, is the implication there that area X will see a shift towards Y in employment/households/tax base etc.? White flight does fall under that, but I'm curious what evidence there is today to support those claims -- white flight occurred during a period when major metropolitan areas weren't quite as built out as they are now. And despite zoning changes towards more density (again, Austin) the tax entity is seeing a huge influx of people/employment/tax base.
With public transportation, if there's a certain density needed to support effective public transportation without subsidies (and I think that's the key differentiation here) and if zoning changes similar to above result in less households/employment/etc. then a single tax entity can't support public transport?
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
Vox's The Weeds podcast did one of their deep dives on housing the other week, and this was their conclusion. The housing problem, practically, borders on an unfixable mess, because it's handled almost entirely through a patchwork of localities, each of whom has incentive to block new housing or public transportation construction in order to protect the home values (and thus votes) of their current residents. And because it's all handled at the local level, the federal government has very few levers to pull to try and fix things.
Local government isn't a right though. The Fed can yell at the State to tell its towns to get their shit in order, and if the State agrees with the Feds, it can happen.
I'm pretty sure these areas also have a lot of power at the state level, and really the government coming in and harming people's home values isn't going to be very popular with a lot of people.
Hence the continued existence of the problem. Because it's not like an organized plan, it's just the confluence of a bunch of local-level self-interested parties.
Not entirely. The FHA had a huge amount of influence that goes back to the 1920s & 30s.
The following is a Vox Video Lab is about how the cul-de-sac became as prominent as it did in American suburbs. In short, it was the FHA backed housing loans. Developers wanted that sweet, sweet federally back money, so they followed the FHA guidelines. Those guidelines included a car centric neighborhoods with curvilinear lines, an anti-grid bias, not to mention all of the racial & social boundaries built into them.
The reality is that we've always had a way to impose better city planning from the top down. It is only a matter of getting the right guidelines in the right places.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I think the level of awareness of the impact of housing policy on .... ALL the things is a teeny tiny fraction of the awareness we have for fighting over who is worthy for welfare and health benefits.../sigh
There is a supply problem in the US for housing cause there's a supply shortage in the places want (read: need) to live. If all locations were equally valued, the US would be awash in houses at super cheap rates. But you don't see a ton of suburban homes in Wyoming and Montana because the value of living there isn't the same as the value of living in major cities. What's needed is policy that can increase the amount of housing units available at a large rate while also not displacing currently affordable units. That's a hard needle to thread.
Example of such a policy: developers want to tear down a plot of land that's previously held affordable student housing. Roughly 1700 units. That's a lot. They want to build a mixed-use development with retail, some office space, some hotel space, etc. Luxury housing right? But they're putting 4700 units there in total, not counting hotel space and everything else. One way to deal with that is to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units targeting the sub 80% LMI rate, say 30% of the units. That's a policy that my city has been doing a lot over the last few years and it's working (somewhat) to maintain affordable housing units while also adding the general housing stock.
Lot of it also comes down to zoning. California is horrendous for that.
A big part of the problem is how local zoning is.
Agreed, but at the same time I'm very much not wanting the state of Texas to step up to the plate on zoning. They'll just fuck things up more.
Probably not honestly. Local zoning control is the height of NIMBYism at the expense of basically ... everything.
Given the work Austin has been doing to combat nimbyism and changing zoning and how the state routinely fucks with local governance yeah I don't want them rooting around in our shit.
Suburban sprawl is untenable period. Urban areas subsidize suburban sprawl through property taxation and the net cost of infrastructure.
I would say yeah that is the answer though.
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
Vox's The Weeds podcast did one of their deep dives on housing the other week, and this was their conclusion. The housing problem, practically, borders on an unfixable mess, because it's handled almost entirely through a patchwork of localities, each of whom has incentive to block new housing or public transportation construction in order to protect the home values (and thus votes) of their current residents. And because it's all handled at the local level, the federal government has very few levers to pull to try and fix things.
Local government isn't a right though. The Fed can yell at the State to tell its towns to get their shit in order, and if the State agrees with the Feds, it can happen.
Ha ha ha
I really feel New Mexico is flat broke but being creative with it's money got it this far. But with the jail redo the county wants to raise taxes to cover it's basic costs :rotate: The roads are horrible on this side of town many have just chunks of asphalt with various aggregate on top of it {I will take pics next time I go out} I feel even though the 2007/8 financial crisis was a gut punch for the state the upcoming on will be a death blow
Probably the biggest areas where sprawl is killing the country long term are:
-You don't have mixed develop, so it forces people to have a car. This tends to be a huge fuck you to the poor since cars aren't exactly cheap. Car insurance is essentially allowed to gouge consumers (fun fact, if end up in a situation where you don't have a vehicle for two years and opt to not have car insurance, like what happened to me a few years okay because I was sharing an apartment with friends and one of them was a coworker and we were only allowed two parking spaces. Geico argued that since I wasn't insured for two years, despite having a clean driving record of several years before being carless, I must be a huge liability risk and tried to charge me what would essentially be a monthly rate that was greater than my car payments for my new, non-used car because how dare I know spend money on insurance for something I didn't have. So fuck insurance companies, but I digress). Forces them to waste their limited time on a ton of road travel, while also eating into money to pay for the gas that is needed to do it.
-You have shitty cul-de-sacs that multiply the issues that the non-mixed development creates.
-You also get developers over focusing on "luxury" development that low income people can't afford even if they have financial aid, that middle class people can't really afford and are only really affordable to a very small percent of the population. Given how financial aid works and the rules in regards to low income housing, you get this really fucked up scenario that we have where the poor's man hurdle to housing is that there isn't enough and they still might be struggling, but the middle class gets absolutely fucked because they go to the back of the line for affordable housing, which is fine, but the greed of developers means they have very few options. Again they can't afford all the shitty McMansions and have to compete with other middle class families for the limited number of houses they can afford. Finally, they do end up competing with wealthy people for those houses as well because nothing stops the rich from buying those house too for their own uses.
-I've noticed sprawl development tends to come in a mix of either massive sized lots that are hell on infrastructure and a fair number of those come with HoAs that insist on trying to force everyone to have nothing bad a massive pain in the ass lawn to maintain (so more time and money pissed away on something that I feel is both bland and tacky). Are McMansions with virtually no lot, so they are a drain via heating & cooling and have the big disadvantages of apartment living (namely they are practically on top of each other, so you run into all the noise problems associated with apartments that have that one inconsiderate asshole). They have both a massive lot and are a tack McMansion, so they don't have noise issues but absolutely fuck the locality on infrastructure costs, while also fucking the owner on maintenance (lawncare, heating & cooling). Finally, I wouldn't not at all be surprised if there were a few spots that had zoning & public opinion that resulted in a bunch of shitty McMansions that were right on top of each other, that has had skinny long massive lawns in front and/or behind them and somehow also managed to achieve a setup that still murdered the local infrastructure.
I'm sure there is some other stuff slipping my mind but those are the big ones that I can think of that will absolutely fuck a ton of areas economically when the funding situation hit a point that money is no longer rolling in for maintenance long enough for shit to start breaking. I'd say development planning would at least need to be on the state level, but I'd probably say it would work better as a partnership between the state and the federal government, with the state mostly taking the lead. It's not just to ensure that states run by racists don't fuck over minorities, but when the feds doing their job right, they do create jobs and not all of those can or have to be in high density population centers. Also a properly run state government, that is stroking the whims of racists, is probably going have a better idea of what population centers are worth trying to keep afloat because they offer something key spot for an industry, a spot where you actually do want the tools stored to service key parts of infrastructure in the event of a disaster or is close enough to a city to be a viable location for people to commute from (by viable, I mean reasonable commute, no this shit where some are spending 2-4 hours commuting a day).
The biggest thing is that a vast number of municipalities in the US have run out of room to grow their tax base and so have fixed income but are sitting on 50+ years of rolled over debt (with balloon payments) coming due real soon
Argentina's stock, currency, and bond markets are crashing after the election (early rounds, not over yet). I thought I'd mention it since its Argentina.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I know next to nothing of Argentina's politics or economics, so I'm not even going to peanut gallery it. The tl;dr is that the current President looks to be losing hard, but this is just an open primary, not the final election, but it seems unlikely to have a different outcome in the final election.
A natural consequence to Macri's centre-right orthodox policies (including going to IMF for a bailout) doing little-to-nothing in stemming Argentina's ongoing currency crisis, which have also caused significant amounts of Argentines to lose their jobs and find a very clear and specific target to direct their ire towards. Granted, he came in second during the 2015 first round also, but by a much closer, and competitive, margin behind the Peronist coalition.
It should be noted that the Peronist opposition ticket is headlined by a placeholder candidate with problematic-at-best (and very likely albiet not conclusively proven to be corrupt), and former president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner as the "running mate" (she will clearly be calling the shots behind the scenes).
One of those lesser of two evils choices for the next round, but clearly trying to satisfy American creditors over an issue that has plagued the country for now-decades hasn't worked, even with a neoliberal outlook on fiscal and monetary policy.
The United States Trade Representative office said Tuesday certain items were being removed from the new China tariff list because of “health, safety, national security and other factors” while tariffs on other items would be delayed until December 15.
The products in the group that will have tariffs delayed include “cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, certain toys, computer monitors, and certain items of footwear and clothing,” the USTR said.
Apple shares traded higher on the news. Best Buy, Nike, Kohl’s and other retailers were also trading higher.
Last month, President Donald Trump announced a new round of tariffs of 10% on $300 billion of Chinese imports that eluded duties in the earlier round in May. The USTR published a list of products in May that may be subject to an addition 10% tariff and that list is now being edited to avoid health and security factors. The USTR added that it will conduct an “exclusion process for products subject to additional tariff.”
"other factors" being the President whining about the stock market dropping a little.
I am amused by national security being both the reason for implementing these tariffs and and also the reason for delaying items in these tariffs.
Signals from Germany are tanking. -5% on exports. Mostly attributed to general malaise + crossfire from the tradewar.
Dutch economy posted minor job losses 2 months in a row after 7 years of growth.
Brexit is about to hit disaster level.
Italy is heading towards another election, with fears that their alt-right Salvini will hit close to 40% of the vote. And he wants to get rid of eurozone spending limits. In the aging, high debt, economically sputtering that could lead to another interest crisis quickly. And Italy can't be studded the way Greece was, the debts are too large.
Yes, let's put tariffs on toys, computers, video game consoles, and cellphones in the holiday shopping season.
To be fair, 10 days before Christmas most of the things coming into dock are not destined for sale before Christmas.
Yeah, if I recall correctly, tariffs either apply to any ship that leaves China after the stated date (which means no ship leaving before December 15th will arrive and unload before Christmas), or arrives in dock before December 15th, which still has to be unloaded, pass customs, ship to the warehouses, ship to distribution, and arrive at retail before Christmas.
This is absolutely a craven play by the Administration. Kinda the only one they have, though.
+2
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
China saw that blink and now knows how to cause another.
Posts
These two ideas are linked. The first is the cause of the second. It doesn't matter how good Austin might be doing because you need urban planning and zoning policy that goes beyond the borders of a single city.
Because otherwise, as an example, suburbs have no stake in aiding the city they are attached to in funding things the city needs or planning in aid of the city but are effecting the city and taking money from it.
I'd wager you'd see an exodus of both businesses and people. Businesses will probably be the first to leave because they either don't want to invest money to make things work, can't afford the time or money to fix things or all of the above. After that you start getting people leaving because there are no jobs or depending on what's breaking, it's just not worth or safe for them to stick around.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
You're both right and not right. Suburban sprawl is not just referring to other cities in the region that don't have a real say, it also refers to the non-dense parts of a city that as a strong urban core. Which is what happens a lot of the time.
With regard to planning and zoning at a regional level, it doesnt matter so much if Round Rock and Pflugerville don't zone for density. They'll always be cheaper homes there compared to the urban core of Austin. But working on density and zoning in Austin can make it more affordable for people generally
That's irrelevant because it's not about them being cheaper, it's about how they are being developed and whether it is amenable to future growth and how much their increased housing stock effects the places those people drive or otherwise to in order to work.
You can't localize planning, it doesn't work. The incentives are aligned in complete opposition to good planning.
Care to delineate those incentives?
Yes it does because metro areas don't end at the city limits. This is literally why the concept of metro areas exists and why they are tracked.
I think realistically the better system would be to have a form of government between cities and state that's at the regional level. But in the absence of that I'll take local zoning over state mandates given, again, Texas.
And I wasn't meaning to be snippy. I would like to see what incentive structures you refer to.
Increased density. Access to public transportation. Affordable housing. Public housing. Just to name some of the most obvious ones. This stuff is all over urban planning literature. The biggest problem with urban planning and a big part of what leads to things like suburban sprawl and terrible layouts that are really difficult if not impossible to fix is that local interests, especially in wealthier areas, run in direct opposition to good urban development planning.
Local zoning though can increase those things. It's something the city of Austin, for example, is doing in spite of nimbyism.
Increasing density and affordability generally comes at the expense if existing homeowners, who are already there and vote, in order to hope for future residents who do not yet exist and so have no voice as a constituency. It can be overcome, but it's a heavy lift because even people who are generally in favor in theory, mostly want it to happen over there.
It's why NIMBY has the MBY. It's not that they're opposed to X, X is a great idea and necessary! They just don't want X next door, but neither do the people on the other side of town.
We have that in NH - regional planning consortiums. There's the option not to go with the regional recommendations, but most just take ready made laws
I wanted to link this video in reply to this quote when it was posted, but I couldn't find it! But, now, today, here it is!
https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesMomentum/videos/388225758448846/
Yes, I know it's a little simplistic, but it lays out the basic fact that austerity measures and trickle-down economics are both complete and utter horseshit and anyone who tries to tell you different is pissing in your pocket.
Vox's The Weeds podcast did one of their deep dives on housing the other week, and this was their conclusion. The housing problem, practically, borders on an unfixable mess, because it's handled almost entirely through a patchwork of localities, each of whom has incentive to block new housing or public transportation construction in order to protect the home values (and thus votes) of their current residents. And because it's all handled at the local level, the federal government has very few levers to pull to try and fix things.
Local government isn't a right though. The Fed can yell at the State to tell its towns to get their shit in order, and if the State agrees with the Feds, it can happen.
In many states the towns inherit power from the states, so you could fix through highway funding etc federally - ie withholding if certain transport goals aren't met. That said, you'd need some sort of formulae around housing and transportation accessibility to assess against, which is an absolute clusterfuck of potential moral hazard
Yeah, the one place they identified as potential pressure point was at the state government/governor level. California's governor has made gestures about enforcing laws on the books requiring cities to plan for their housing needs. The federal government hasn't really shown interest in working on this, so advocacy organizations forcing this as a state-level issue is likely the best hope for movement forward.
I'm pretty sure these areas also have a lot of power at the state level, and really the government coming in and harming people's home values isn't going to be very popular with a lot of people.
Because urban planning requires organization at a larger level then a single neighbourhood or city or town or suburb. It doesn't matter what X area does if literally one block over they are doing something completely different.
This is the basic issue that created things like, random easy example, white flight. Other examples would be attempts to create public transportation systems and the needed density to properly support them. Can't build a good network when one of the suburbs along the way is saying "Fuck you, no transit here and no increased density."
Hence the continued existence of the problem. Because it's not like an organized plan, it's just the confluence of a bunch of local-level self-interested parties.
One of the reasons why WMATA has such trouble is they have to deal with 2 states and the District.
I don't think you're laying out the argument clearly enough for me. Like, I kind of see what you're saying but not entirely.
So if what area X does doesn't matter if area Y a certain distance away does something different, is the implication there that area X will see a shift towards Y in employment/households/tax base etc.? White flight does fall under that, but I'm curious what evidence there is today to support those claims -- white flight occurred during a period when major metropolitan areas weren't quite as built out as they are now. And despite zoning changes towards more density (again, Austin) the tax entity is seeing a huge influx of people/employment/tax base.
With public transportation, if there's a certain density needed to support effective public transportation without subsidies (and I think that's the key differentiation here) and if zoning changes similar to above result in less households/employment/etc. then a single tax entity can't support public transport?
Not entirely. The FHA had a huge amount of influence that goes back to the 1920s & 30s.
The following is a Vox Video Lab is about how the cul-de-sac became as prominent as it did in American suburbs. In short, it was the FHA backed housing loans. Developers wanted that sweet, sweet federally back money, so they followed the FHA guidelines. Those guidelines included a car centric neighborhoods with curvilinear lines, an anti-grid bias, not to mention all of the racial & social boundaries built into them.
The reality is that we've always had a way to impose better city planning from the top down. It is only a matter of getting the right guidelines in the right places.
Ha ha ha
I really feel New Mexico is flat broke but being creative with it's money got it this far. But with the jail redo the county wants to raise taxes to cover it's basic costs :rotate: The roads are horrible on this side of town many have just chunks of asphalt with various aggregate on top of it {I will take pics next time I go out} I feel even though the 2007/8 financial crisis was a gut punch for the state the upcoming on will be a death blow
-You don't have mixed develop, so it forces people to have a car. This tends to be a huge fuck you to the poor since cars aren't exactly cheap. Car insurance is essentially allowed to gouge consumers (fun fact, if end up in a situation where you don't have a vehicle for two years and opt to not have car insurance, like what happened to me a few years okay because I was sharing an apartment with friends and one of them was a coworker and we were only allowed two parking spaces. Geico argued that since I wasn't insured for two years, despite having a clean driving record of several years before being carless, I must be a huge liability risk and tried to charge me what would essentially be a monthly rate that was greater than my car payments for my new, non-used car because how dare I know spend money on insurance for something I didn't have. So fuck insurance companies, but I digress). Forces them to waste their limited time on a ton of road travel, while also eating into money to pay for the gas that is needed to do it.
-You have shitty cul-de-sacs that multiply the issues that the non-mixed development creates.
-You also get developers over focusing on "luxury" development that low income people can't afford even if they have financial aid, that middle class people can't really afford and are only really affordable to a very small percent of the population. Given how financial aid works and the rules in regards to low income housing, you get this really fucked up scenario that we have where the poor's man hurdle to housing is that there isn't enough and they still might be struggling, but the middle class gets absolutely fucked because they go to the back of the line for affordable housing, which is fine, but the greed of developers means they have very few options. Again they can't afford all the shitty McMansions and have to compete with other middle class families for the limited number of houses they can afford. Finally, they do end up competing with wealthy people for those houses as well because nothing stops the rich from buying those house too for their own uses.
-I've noticed sprawl development tends to come in a mix of either massive sized lots that are hell on infrastructure and a fair number of those come with HoAs that insist on trying to force everyone to have nothing bad a massive pain in the ass lawn to maintain (so more time and money pissed away on something that I feel is both bland and tacky). Are McMansions with virtually no lot, so they are a drain via heating & cooling and have the big disadvantages of apartment living (namely they are practically on top of each other, so you run into all the noise problems associated with apartments that have that one inconsiderate asshole). They have both a massive lot and are a tack McMansion, so they don't have noise issues but absolutely fuck the locality on infrastructure costs, while also fucking the owner on maintenance (lawncare, heating & cooling). Finally, I wouldn't not at all be surprised if there were a few spots that had zoning & public opinion that resulted in a bunch of shitty McMansions that were right on top of each other, that has had skinny long massive lawns in front and/or behind them and somehow also managed to achieve a setup that still murdered the local infrastructure.
I'm sure there is some other stuff slipping my mind but those are the big ones that I can think of that will absolutely fuck a ton of areas economically when the funding situation hit a point that money is no longer rolling in for maintenance long enough for shit to start breaking. I'd say development planning would at least need to be on the state level, but I'd probably say it would work better as a partnership between the state and the federal government, with the state mostly taking the lead. It's not just to ensure that states run by racists don't fuck over minorities, but when the feds doing their job right, they do create jobs and not all of those can or have to be in high density population centers. Also a properly run state government, that is stroking the whims of racists, is probably going have a better idea of what population centers are worth trying to keep afloat because they offer something key spot for an industry, a spot where you actually do want the tools stored to service key parts of infrastructure in the event of a disaster or is close enough to a city to be a viable location for people to commute from (by viable, I mean reasonable commute, no this shit where some are spending 2-4 hours commuting a day).
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Here's a BBC article on the election, here's a BBC article about the current economic situation in the country.
It should be noted that the Peronist opposition ticket is headlined by a placeholder candidate with problematic-at-best (and very likely albiet not conclusively proven to be corrupt), and former president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner as the "running mate" (she will clearly be calling the shots behind the scenes).
One of those lesser of two evils choices for the next round, but clearly trying to satisfy American creditors over an issue that has plagued the country for now-decades hasn't worked, even with a neoliberal outlook on fiscal and monetary policy.
"other factors" being the President whining about the stock market dropping a little.
I am amused by national security being both the reason for implementing these tariffs and and also the reason for delaying items in these tariffs.
To be fair, 10 days before Christmas most of the things coming into dock are not destined for sale before Christmas.
Dutch economy posted minor job losses 2 months in a row after 7 years of growth.
Brexit is about to hit disaster level.
Italy is heading towards another election, with fears that their alt-right Salvini will hit close to 40% of the vote. And he wants to get rid of eurozone spending limits. In the aging, high debt, economically sputtering that could lead to another interest crisis quickly. And Italy can't be studded the way Greece was, the debts are too large.
The Eurozone is looking poised for bad ride.
Yeah, if I recall correctly, tariffs either apply to any ship that leaves China after the stated date (which means no ship leaving before December 15th will arrive and unload before Christmas), or arrives in dock before December 15th, which still has to be unloaded, pass customs, ship to the warehouses, ship to distribution, and arrive at retail before Christmas.
This is absolutely a craven play by the Administration. Kinda the only one they have, though.