Unified Development Ordinance

[videtur quam contuor]

Kermit, this right here is your REAL work.

 

52 minutes ago, kermit said:

So yea, I get the impulse that it is a bad idea that allowing missing middle housing to be built in neighborhoods that are not transit accessible. However, I am reminded of the self-reinforcing loop we are trapped in with regards to reducing auto dependence.

• Developer: "Hey, I think we can make a parking free multi-family project work in Seversville. This will help reduce housing costs"
• Community: "Wait! This street is too far from transit [there is a bus stop two blocks away], this will mess up our neighborhood because all these residents will park on MY street. We should table this and wait until there is better transit."
• CATS: "We can't get federal funding to build rail transit there because residential densities are too low to generate sufficient ridership"
• Community: "No problem, we will just pull up the drawbridge. People can always find affordable housing elsewhere, but I gotta park here."

[this one had a happy ending, but it certainly would not have if the project was in South Charlotte]

Alternatively (taken from discussions on this board):

• Developer: "I am gonna build a 23 story office building right next to one of the busiest light rail stations in Charlotte, BUT I will need 1/3 of the building to be reserved for parking"
• Half of UP posters: "That is a huge waste of transit accessible space and it will make it more difficult and dangerous to walk in the neighborhood and get to transit'
• Other half of UP posters: "yea, but you gotta have parking because transit does not go everywhere in Charlotte yet. You gotta accommodate the parking needs of suburbanites no matter how good transit is."
• CATS: "We can't build transit which connects all of South Charlotte's subdivisions to Southend because densities are too low"
• Suburbanites in general: "See, we gotta keep building all of our neighborhoods to be auto dependent because of my lifestyle choice."

[transit ridership remains forever depressed, making it more difficult to get funding to expand transit]

or, in North Meck right now:

• N Meck Residents: "When we have commuter rail connecting us to uptown it will be awesome and all of us will ride it"
• CATS: "Sorry, we can't actually build commuter rail right now, but here is a faster, cheaper and more frequent bus option for you all in the meantime."
• N Meck Residents: "Bus? Fuc3 all y'all. No more transit for anyone"

[Bus transit isn't good enough for taxpayers so CATS is forced into more expensive rail projects -- reducing our ability to expand transit]

It looks to me like we are hamstrung.  Charlotte can't be made more transit friendly until densities increase (per current federal requirements for transit finance). But, densities can't increase until there is more [rail] transit and until we reduce parking (per what suburban residents are telling their Council reps). While we are stuck in this purgatory, traffic will increase, housing becomes less affordable and carbon outputs increase -- these changes might eventually eliminate Charlotte's comparative advantages and choke off our growth (which none of us want).

So the question is, how do we break this cycle of stasis? Its been suggested that the zoning change (which is very cheap for the city to implement and actually improves everyone's finances!) isn't the right way to go. These folks suggested that making the zoning change just in transit corridors is a better approach -- but will that adjustment be sufficient to remedy the housing cost, congestion and carbon problems, particularly given the current state of transit in Charlotte. I also feel like this gives a pass to the folks who live in low density areas -- the people who are disproportionately responsible for creating the problems the zoning change is trying to solve.

So here is my alternative (and completely unrealistic) proposal:

1. End single family zoning in transit corridors (but we gotta figure out what qualifies as a transit corridor. Is regular 30 minute bus service enough? Is the promise of LRT in 10 years enough? 1/4 mile from transit? 2 miles?  etc.)
2. Impose a low-density area property tax surcharge on the areas which maintain SF zoning (make the tax proportional to lot size). Earmark this revenue for transit expansion in lieu of the proposed sales tax increment.  When transit arrives make the zoning change, but keep the tax surcharge until densities rise above some predetermined threshold. {the fiscal hope is increased property tax revenues from higher density could replace the value of the surcharge for transit finance]
3. Simple as that.
4. Perhaps add in a parking tax to encourage commercial development in transit friendly areas as well.

I dunno, but our current system is being used to thwart solutions to our clearly visible problems so its time to try something different.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by tarhoosier

[jthomas]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

This strategy also gives a free pass to the folks who live in low density areas -- the very people who are disproportionately responsible for creating the sustainability problems the zoning change is trying to solve.

...

I dunno, but our current unsustainable land use is being used to thwart solutions to our clearly visible problems. I think its time to try something different.

 

Hallelujah and amen! It truly is a chicken and egg problem, but there must be some sort of change to break the cycle. And IMO, it is a better move to break the stalemate through zoning laws (which are free, albeit at a high political cost) rather than by trying to guide development with billion dollar transit projects (which are still necessary, of course!). To me, it is much more fair to eliminate SFR zoning across the board than it is for a city to pick and choose favored/disfavored quarters. Let the market dictate where densification occurs. I think in practice, the change would not be as dramatic as some fear. Most likely, there won't be triplexes popping up midblock on upscale streets. The densification will probably occur first on lower-value properties, such as homes along busy arterials (which is a win-win, because then it is easier to support better bus service). And if the market does support the wholesale densification of a neighborhood, then that is good evidence that SFR is not the highest and best use, and that the zoning was artificially restricting the market.

[JacksonH]

9 hours ago, kermit said:

So yea, I get the personal impulse that it is a bad idea that allowing missing middle housing to be built in neighborhoods that are not transit accessible. However, I am reminded that this reflex contributes to the self-reinforcing loop we are trapped in with regards to reducing auto dependence.

• Developer: "Hey, I think we can make a parking free multi-family project work in Seversville. This will help reduce housing costs"
• Community: "Wait! This street is too far from transit [there is a bus stop two blocks away], this will mess up our neighborhood because all these residents will park on MY street. We should table this until the neighborhood has better transit."
• CATS: "We can't get federal funding to build rail transit there because residential densities are too low to generate sufficient ridership to apply for federal funding"
• Community: "No problem, we will just pull up the drawbridge. People can always find affordable housing elsewhere, but I will always need to park here."

[this one had a happy ending, but it certainly would not have if the project was in South Charlotte]

Alternatively (taken from discussions on this board):

• Developer: "I am gonna build a 23 story office building right next to one of the busiest light rail stations in Charlotte, BUT I will still will need 1/3 of the building to be reserved for parking"
• Half of UP posters: "That is a huge waste of transit accessible space and it will make it more difficult and dangerous to walk in the neighborhood and get to transit'
• Other half of UP posters: "yea, but you gotta have parking because transit does not go everywhere in Charlotte yet. You gotta accommodate the parking needs of suburbanites no matter how good transit is."
• CATS: "We can't build transit which connects all of South Charlotte's subdivisions to Southend because densities are too low in the single family neighborhoods"
• Suburbanites in general: "Until I can take transit everywhere, you gotta keep building a crapton of parking in transit served areas because of my lifestyle choice."

[transit ridership remains forever depressed, making it more difficult to get funding to expand transit in the future]

or, in North Meck right now:

• N Meck Residents: "When we have commuter rail connecting us to uptown it will be awesome and all of us will ride it"
• CATS: "Sorry, we can't actually build commuter rail right now, but here is a faster, cheaper and more frequent bus option for you all in the meantime."
• N Meck Residents: "Bus? Fuc3 all y'all. No more transit for anyone!"

[Bus transit isn't good enough for taxpayers so CATS is forced into more expensive rail projects -- further reducing our ability to expand transit]

It looks to me like we are hamstrung.  Charlotte can't be made more transit friendly until densities increase (per current federal requirements for transit finance). But, densities can't increase until there is more [rail] transit (per what suburban residents are telling their Council reps). While we are stuck in this purgatory, traffic will increase, housing becomes less affordable and carbon outputs increase -- these changes might eventually eliminate Charlotte's comparative advantages and choke off our growth (which none of us want).

So the question is, how do we break out of this trap? Its been suggested that the zoning change (which is very cheap for the city to implement and actually improves everyone's finances!) isn't the right way to go.  These folks suggested that making the zoning change just in transit corridors is a better approach -- but will that adjustment be sufficient to remedy the housing cost, congestion and carbon problems, particularly given the current state of transit in Charlotte? This strategy also gives a free pass to the folks who live in low density areas -- the very people who are disproportionately responsible for creating the sustainability problems the zoning change is trying to solve.

So here is my alternative (and completely unrealistic) proposal:

1. End single family zoning in transit corridors (but we gotta figure out what qualifies as a transit corridor first: Is regular 30 minute bus service enough? Is the promise of LRT in 10 years enough? 1/4 mile from transit? 2 miles?  etc.)
2. Impose a low-density area property tax surcharge on all of the areas which maintain SF zoning (make the tax proportional to lot size). These areas do impose higher costs on the city for service delivery after all.  Earmark this revenue for transit expansion in lieu of the proposed sales tax increment.  When (if) transit arrives to these low density neighborhoods then the planning office can make the zoning change, but keep the tax surcharge until densities rise above some predetermined threshold. {the fiscal hope is increased property tax revenues from higher density could replace the value of the surcharge for transit finance]
3. Simple as that.
4. Perhaps add in a parking tax to limit job sprawl as well.

I dunno, but our current unsustainable land use is being used to thwart solutions to our clearly visible problems. I think its time to try something different.

 

When does your mayoral campaign begin?

[RANYC]

On 3/4/2021 at 10:35 AM, MothBeast said:

This is the mindset that has led to the passive proliferation of white supremacy since the civil rights movement. Yes, people are typically classist more than racist in cities. That doesn't mean that classist policy doesn't create racist results. More minorities are in the lower class and more white Americans are in the upper class. Until we fix that relationship all class related policy will be inherently racist. One way to fix this is to move towards creating neighborhoods with a diversity of income so that geography becomes less of a factor in in the class divide. People saying that this has nothing to do with race are afraid of the concept that almost everything in this country is embroiled in a culture of racism that still exists even if it is no longer so obvious that it slaps you across the face.

Right.  

Asian-Americans earn more than white-americans, but by "more minorities," perhaps you mean just Black and Latino minority groups and their victimization by the class-related policies you speak about?

When you say "create neighborhoods with a diversity of income," can you be more specific?  If you eliminate single-family exclusives, then will those single-family lots in high-priced and largely white areas be suddenly upzoned with housing for lower and middle-income residents?  Or will those lots simply be up-zoned with luxury town-homes and even luxury mid-rise condos, akin to what they're already building in various parts of South Charlotte?

So is this just about eliminating single family zones, or are we talking both eliminating those zones and then mandating that, once up-zoned, those lots include housing for lower-income residents?

 

[RANYC]

After Braxton Winston Says Single-Family Zoning Is A 'Racist Ideology,' One Colleague Calls Him 'Reckless' | WFAE 90.7 - Charlotte's NPR News Source

Braxton quotes as reported by this article:

“Good afternoon, Thank you for sharing your concerns,” Winston wrote. “Single-family zoning is a policy of segregation. I will not support racist ideology and philosophies.

But what about when an African American leader like Watlington says her constituents are wary of doing away with single-family zoning?

“The tools of white supremacy and the tools of the oppressor are employed by the oppressed every day,” he said. “This is our duty, I believe, to deconstruct those systems, regardless of who is coveting them. Regardless of the color of the person, the gender identity of the person or the economic status of the person.”

Sorry, but I think this UDO is dead on arrival.  Everyone I'm speaking with is enraged, and to them, this is looking less and less like a zoning guidelines rewrite, and more like a broad-scale indictment of "oppressors" for living on single-family lots...and as for those black homeowners who've purchased into single-family neighborhoods, well, they're apparently just puppets of the oppressor according to Braxton and his acolytes.

Edited March 6, 2021 by RANYC

[RANYC]

Wow, interesting.

Taiwo Jaiyeoba is Charlotte's planning director, and is leading both the 2040 Comp Plan initiative, and the transit plan.  Thought for sure that he was a die-hard urbanite.  Turns out, he lives in a 5300 square foot, 5 bedroom/5 bathroom house on a cul-de-sac in a gated community in Wesley Chapel, Union County.

So I suppose that's one way to address this.  Single-family zoning in the city of Charlotte is racist, so move to Union County if that's the aesthetic you prefer, and apparently there, it's just fine.

Edited March 6, 2021 by RANYC

[KJHburg]

^^^ I did read that today in the Charlotte Ledger about him living in Union County in a gated community no less.   Very interesting to say the least.  

[RANYC]

Actually, one might conjecture that if Taiwo's vision for Charlotte drives wealthy homeowners out of upscale, inner-city neighborhoods, a decent chunk of them are likely to make their way to upscale neighborhoods in Union County, driving up demand and ultimately his property values.  

[kermit]

Here is a photo of an actual Myers Park duplex. It’s about a block away from Pat McCrory’s house. There are two units connected by garage, shared laundry in middle. Each unit is rented by a single parent who needed to live in MP school district to maintain continuity for kids following divorce. 

As you can tell, these things really F’up the neighborhood so we should probably keep our prohibition on building more of these...

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by kermit

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

Here is a bad photo of half of an actual Myers Park duplex. It’s about a block away from Pat McCrory’s house. There are two units connected by garage, shared laundry in middle. Each unit is rented by a single parent who needed to live in MP school district to maintain continuity for kids following divorce. 

As you can tell, these things really F’up the neighborhood so we should probably keep them illegal...

 

 

Your photographic account appears to suggest that such housing alternatives are not illegal, right? 

This can get done by exception?

Also scale and prevalence matters on what you get visually.  Bloomberg City Labs points to Houston as a good model for how hands-off zoning allows for extensive housing variety...of course, it likely drives a significant share of buyers into deed-restricted gated communities.  As with most initiatives, devil is in the details but when neighborhoods want to engage, Braxton is calling them out as racist or racism peddlers.  Not a good sign for this thing getting passed.  

Edited March 6, 2021 by RANYC

[kermit]

3 hours ago, RANYC said:

Your photographic account appears to suggest that such housing alternatives are not illegal, right? 

This can get done by exception?

Duplex construction is prohibited by the current zoning code on most lots in SF neighborhoods. My photographic evidence indicates that it was legal to build them at the time this was constructed (I assume).

While I am no expert on zoning, I believe a code revision from a decade (ish) ago permits duplex construction on most corner lots. As I understand it, the UDO would make duplexes legal on any lot, not just at corners.

This duplex at the corner of Magnolia and McDonald was built following that code change:

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by kermit

[RANYC]

Upzoning - Be Careful What You Wish For... | The Corner Side Yard

Good story in the link above about mixed research on whether upzoning results in affordability.  She makes a point that development dollars tend to flow to fairly localized boom areas in moderate-growth cities, and as a result, upzoning results in new luxury product in largely SFH areas that are currently "hot."  I'm of the view that Charlotte falls in the category with Chicago rather than NYC. 

At any rate, before we start upzoning neighhborhoods like Myers' Park, why can't we make places like Eastland dense as hell, or find some way to encourage single-use shopping centers and strip malls to be upzoned with residential density.  But I guess you can't really stick it to affluence focusing on all those frontiers of upzoning and redevelopment first.

Edited March 6, 2021 by RANYC

[kermit]

57 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Upzoning - Be Careful What You Wish For... | The Corner Side Yard

I'm of the view that Charlotte falls in the category with Chicago rather than NYC.  Before we start upzoning neighhborhoods like Myers' Park, or why can't we make places like Eastland dense as hell, or find some way to encourage single-use shopping centers and strip malls to be upzoned with residential density.  But I guess you can't really stick it to affluence focusing on all those frontiers of upzoning and redevelopment first.

Well, we have already done that in Southend and areas around Montford, Southpark and University City. The economics of downzoning commercial property for residential use requires Southend-like densities of residential and it appears that developers don’t see a good economic case for doing that in East Charlotte without subsidy. Stacked multifamily is fine for some, but other folks (like the residents of the MP duplex show above) would like to have lower density options available to them — options that are largely prohibited by our current zoning code.  Preventing those missing middle options from being built is just sticking it to the middle class.

[I don’t really understand how ending SF zoning would  ‘stick it to affeluence’]

Edited March 6, 2021 by kermit

[videtur quam contuor]

Question:  If the majority of the wealth one owns is the EQUITY* in one's home, does that make a person affluent? I ask because I wonder if these protesting individuals believe their single greatest asset is "at risk". Quotation marks intentional.

*Equity, not value of property.

Edited March 6, 2021 by tarhoosier

[kermit]

1 hour ago, tarhoosier said:

Question:  If the majority of the wealth one owns is the EQUITY* in one's home, does that make a person affluent? I ask because I wonder if these protesting individuals believe their single greatest asset is "at risk". Quotation marks intentional.

*Equity, not value of property.

I assume that is the case (the people pushing back are concerned about protecting the equity they have invested in their homes).  

I don’t understand how the zoning change would reduce existing home values. The UDO is not proposing to build subsidized housing in these SF neighborhoods and the value of land generally goes up when upzoning happens. I honestly think that ending SF zoning would either make home values unchanged (in the areas where there is no demand for a second housing unit) or increase in areas where second units would sell. I am struggling to see an economic downside (for anyone) as a result of this policy change.

Edited March 6, 2021 by kermit

[RANYC]

I was pretty open to constructive dialogue on all this before Braxton's tweets about racism.  Now I'm getting to the point where I'm against this just to antagonize his overtures.  Sorry.

Having said that, I was one of the first on here to support what I thought was a middle-ground position to potentially eliminate SF zoning along transit corridors.  If Government is going to spend billions on an intense transit project which typically leads to a value windfall for adjacent and proximal land-owners, then Government has every interest in up-zoning the entire length of the transit infrastructure to ensure the max amount of practical use of the taxpayer-funded capital investment.

I do believe fast-growing cities must reshape urban land use to ensure sustainable growth.  But this reshaping should emphasize investment in non-auto infrastructure and the reduction of automobile dependence!  If this reshaping is premised on the assumption that SF zoning is racist, and anyone living in such zones is perpetuating racism, then I will fight this every time.  Sorry.

Car-dependent urban density is hideous, IMO.  Taking individual lots in SF neighborhoods where each adult must rely on her own car for self-determining mobility, and suddenly increasing the number of adults by 3-4 fold such that the number of cars that must be accommodated grows by the same factor, is just an aesthetic nightmare.  I know I may get chided by this thread because of my interest in neighborhood aesthetics in the age of "woke" outrage, but that's my position.

Now if the upzoning reasonably requires deed-restrictions that no one can own or possess a car, similar to what's happening with the Seversville apartment project, well maybe there's room to discuss.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by RANYC

[jthomas]

2 hours ago, RANYC said:

Having said that, I was one of the first on here to support what I thought was a middle-ground position to potentially eliminate SF zoning along transit corridors.  If Government is going to spend billions on an intense transit project which typically leads to a value windfall for adjacent and proximal land-owners, then Government has every interest in up-zoning the entire length of the transit infrastructure to ensure the max amount of practical use of the taxpayer-funded capital investment.

I do believe fast-growing cities must reshape urban land use to ensure sustainable growth.  But this reshaping should emphasize investment in non-auto infrastructure and the reduction of automobile dependence!  If this reshaping is premised on the assumption that SF zoning is racist, and anyone living in such zones is perpetuating racism, then I will fight this every time.  Sorry.

Car-dependent urban density is hideous, IMO.  Taking individual lots in SF neighborhoods where each adult must rely on her own car for self-determining mobility, and suddenly increasing the number of adults by 3-4 fold such that the number of cars that must be accommodated grows by the same factor, is just an aesthetic nightmare.  I know I may get chided by this thread because of my interest in neighborhood aesthetics in the age of "woke" outrage, but that's my position.

Now if the upzoning reasonably requires deed-restrictions that no one can own or possess a car, similar to what's happening with the Seversville apartment project, well maybe there's room to discuss.

 

I do agree with many of your points. But the reason I prefer universal upzoning is that ultimately, I think it is the most fair approach. Strong Towns calls this "allowing the next increment of development everywhere." So for single-family neighborhoods, that means duplexes. For other areas such as commercial corridors, it means much denser development. You are absolutely right that in areas where government invests in transit infrastructure, they should upzone to leverage that investment. And while I agree that car-dependent density is awful, I disagree that upzoning single family neighborhoods would automatically result in that outcome. *In a sane zoning regime*, neighborhood commercial uses would be allowed everywhere, along with missing middle-type housing. The increased density of the neighborhood supports the retail, and the proximity of the retail decreases the auto-dependency of the neighborhood. This is how it used to be done, and there's no reason why we can't return to that manner of city building.

[RANYC]

3 hours ago, jthomas said:

I do agree with many of your points. But the reason I prefer universal upzoning is that ultimately, I think it is the most fair approach. Strong Towns calls this "allowing the next increment of development everywhere." So for single-family neighborhoods, that means duplexes. For other areas such as commercial corridors, it means much denser development. You are absolutely right that in areas where government invests in transit infrastructure, they should upzone to leverage that investment. And while I agree that car-dependent density is awful, I disagree that upzoning single family neighborhoods would automatically result in that outcome. *In a sane zoning regime*, neighborhood commercial uses would be allowed everywhere, along with missing middle-type housing. The increased density of the neighborhood supports the retail, and the proximity of the retail decreases the auto-dependency of the neighborhood. This is how it used to be done, and there's no reason why we can't return to that manner of city building.

You're making a couple leaps here, which is fair given that we're all conjecturing.  You agree that car-dependent density is awful, but you're willing to agree to such car-dependent density because proximal retail will follow and "eventually" this intensification of land use will decrease auto-dependency.  I am skeptical, and would make a number of neighborhoods in LA my first exhibit.  In many cases, they've wound up with gridlock for even short auto-jaunts to the nearby grocer.

You'll note in "Kermit's" photos above that his/her examples of "up-zoning" in a couple inner city neighborhoods featured properties lacking sidewalks, a rudiment of auto-indepedence.  These neighborhoods are simply not natively transit-oriented, and adding upzoning for density given their auto-centricity is a disaster waiting to happen.  Now in the case of Plaza Midwood, given a street car line is starting to needle its way into the neighborhood with plans for more fixed transit lines within the framework of the Comp Plan, I think there's a decent argument for SF elimination.

Blanket elimination is a non-starter.  I'd focus on more blank-slate neighborhoods better positioned for transit-oriented design or even transit-oriented re-design.  That should keep our hands full as a community for the next 20 years without wading into a battle royale with entrenched single family neighborhoods because our "woke" sensibilities want us to stick it to the "privileged."  As long as there's not an outright repudiation of the language in use by Braxton, I and many in my network will fight this UDO with whatever resources are at our disposal. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by RANYC

[nicholas]

11 hours ago, tarhoosier said:

Question:  If the majority of the wealth one owns is the EQUITY* in one's home, does that make a person affluent? I ask because I wonder if these protesting individuals believe their single greatest asset is "at risk". Quotation marks intentional.

*Equity, not value of property.

It varies a bit by some demographics (older people generally have larger investment portfolios than younger people), but in general homes are the largest percentage of a given person's net worth.

I think the negative response to eliminating single-family zoning is mostly a "I bought in this neighborhood because I liked it, and I don't want anything to change" mindset.  This is getting a bit off topic, but it kind of reminds me of my late grandmother's old house in the university area, which was constructed in 1970 towards the end of a quiet gravel road basically in the middle of nowhere (it was a road that was later bisected by I-85 when it was built).  According to my mom and her family, there were a few other houses (mainly owned by longtime families of the immediate area), but otherwise the area was completely undeveloped other than some churches.  However, development gradually started making its way to the university area, and before too long the road was paved, and by that point it was only a matter of time before a bunch of subdivisions began lining what used to be a quiet back road.  Each time a new subdivision was announced, residents of existing (usually recently completed) subdivisions would get all worked up about more people, more traffic, etc being right outside of their neighborhood.  This cycle played out over and over, and it was funny in a sad sort of way because my mom's family was there well before any of the neighborhoods were built (her ancestors and relatives go back to at least the early 1800s, probably into the 1700s) and now it's completely unrecognizable to all of them. 

I doubt anyone in Myers Park would see their property values go down if single family zoning was replaced by higher-density zoning because it's already so expensive to build in that area.  I mean there have been numerous townhome and condo projects along Queens Rd near the library, and I can't imagine any of those have had a negative effect whatsoever on any of the high six-figure/low seven-figure houses adjacent to these developments.  With the right leadership, I think the city could figure out a way to sell opponents on a UDO that either eliminates or seriously reduces single home zoning, but that will never happen when you have a moron like Winston personally attacking a huge majority of the city. 

Funny how you don't hear the development restrictions in Chapel Hill or San Fransisco referred to as racist....

[jthomas]

18 hours ago, RANYC said:

You're making a couple leaps here, which is fair given that we're all conjecturing.  You agree that car-dependent density is awful, but you're willing to agree to such car-dependent density because proximal retail will follow and "eventually" this intensification of land use will decrease auto-dependency.  I am skeptical, and would make a number of neighborhoods in LA my first exhibit.  In many cases, they've wound up with gridlock for even short auto-jaunts to the nearby grocer.

You'll note in "Kermit's" photos above that his/her examples of "up-zoning" in a couple inner city neighborhoods featured properties lacking sidewalks, a rudiment of auto-indepedence.  These neighborhoods are simply not natively transit-oriented, and adding upzoning for density given their auto-centricity is a disaster waiting to happen.  Now in the case of Plaza Midwood, given a street car line is starting to needle its way into the neighborhood with plans for more fixed transit lines within the framework of the Comp Plan, I think there's a decent argument for SF elimination.

Blanket elimination is a non-starter.  I'd focus on more blank-slate neighborhoods better positioned for transit-oriented design or even transit-oriented re-design.  That should keep our hands full as a community for the next 20 years without wading into a battle royale with entrenched single family neighborhoods because our "woke" sensibilities want us to stick it to the "privileged."  As long as there's not an outright repudiation of the language in use by Braxton, I and many in my network will fight this UDO with whatever resources are at our disposal. 

To me, the issue has nothing to do with "woke" vs. "privileged", and I do agree that framing it that way is a distraction at best. Better urban development should be attractive to people across the political spectrum - whether you care about equity, the environment, fiscal prudence, or reducing government regulation - there's something for everyone!

I do want to push back against the view you seem to hold, that densifying areas that are currently auto-oriented will *inevitably* lead to the auto-centric density that we both agree is miserable. We have arrived at the built environment we have today as the direct result of 75 years of land use *and* transportation policies that massively favor the personal automobile. Single-use zoning, mandatory parking minimums, woeful underinvestment in pedestrian/bike infrastructure, bare-bones public transportation, transportation spending that overwhelmingly prioritizes highways - the list goes on and on. ALL of these policies must be recalibrated to produce the best result. You are right that densifying without changing the other issues will lead to a poor built environment. But, you have to start somewhere, and land-use policy seems to me to be the key that unlocks the whole puzzle.

[RANYC]

...

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by RANYC

[RANYC]

17 hours ago, jthomas said:

To me, the issue has nothing to do with "woke" vs. "privileged", and I do agree that framing it that way is a distraction at best. Better urban development should be attractive to people across the political spectrum - whether you care about equity, the environment, fiscal prudence, or reducing government regulation - there's something for everyone!

I do want to push back against the view you seem to hold, that densifying areas that are currently auto-oriented will *inevitably* lead to the auto-centric density that we both agree is miserable. We have arrived at the built environment we have today as the direct result of 75 years of land use *and* transportation policies that massively favor the personal automobile. Single-use zoning, mandatory parking minimums, woeful underinvestment in pedestrian/bike infrastructure, bare-bones public transportation, transportation spending that overwhelmingly prioritizes highways - the list goes on and on. ALL of these policies must be recalibrated to produce the best result. You are right that densifying without changing the other issues will lead to a poor built environment. But, you have to start somewhere, and land-use policy seems to me to be the key that unlocks the whole puzzle.

Complete Streets

Can this year's comp plan commit to the idea that over the next 20 years, X% of Charlotte streets will become complete streets, a basic rudiment of auto-independence?  I can very easily foresee a scenario where we eliminate SF zones, have rapid development intensification, but continue to have streets with no sidewalks, with limited bike path accessibility, and no speed regulators.  Again, have seen this in many sunbelt cities where intense residential density for sustainability and auto-reduction was a mere ruse, given many of the streets continue to lack sidewalks and intuitive transit connectivity.  As a result, people only feel safe in their cars going from point A to point B, even for relatively short trips, except that now there's 3x the number of cars around. 

Phased Reduction of SF Zones

The comp plan time horizon is 20 years.  What if we start with land-use changes and SF zone  elimination in areas adjacent to fixed transit corridors?  We can still consider upzonings in neighborhoods like Myers Park on a case by case basis where in the course of negotiations, you might actually have a chance to negotiate more affordable and accessible housing as part of consensus?

[SgtCampsalot]

^So, this is a tantalizing theoretical conversation about the UDO, but if we want to avoid ending up like Austin, maybe we can advocate for this thing directly to council.

Here are their addresses, feel free to copy/paste:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

[RANYC]

2 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

^So, this is a tantalizing theoretical conversation about the UDO, but if we want to avoid ending up like Austin, maybe we can advocate for this thing directly to council.

Here are their addresses, feel free to copy/paste:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

My final position:

Free Market Progressivism Requires UDO Passage

The UDO does not eliminate Single Family Land Usage, it eliminates Government restrictions on anything but SF usage.  It loosens the strangling grip of big government on lot optionality so that market forces can better meet the fast-changing demand for housing-type variety in a fast-growing city. 

Having said that, our city would like to avoid the dysfunction of car-centric density, however.  Expanded freedom in lot usage should be supported by the infrastructure necessary to prevent crippling gridlock and dysfunction.

Government regulation must often balance market dynamism and quality of life considerations.  To advance this balance and in exchange for expanded lot freedom, the city should set and pursue measurable goals for complete streets coverage, and allow for full lot optionality in land areas adjacent and proximal to fixed transit infrastructure.

Edited March 8, 2021 by RANYC

[davidclt]

2 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

^So, this is a tantalizing theoretical conversation about the UDO, but if we want to avoid ending up like Austin, maybe we can advocate for this thing directly to council.

Here are their addresses, feel free to copy/paste:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

I sent my thoughts to [wrong Julie] and forwarded to : [email protected]. Also sent to [email protected],  [email protected]; [email protected]; and [email protected]. CCed: Bokhari and Jaiyeoba (since I support his vison at least 95% if not more)

I've heard from Dimple and the Mayor. I didn't expect a response from Tariq since I'm not in his district. I will say I always find anodyne statements infuriating but I'm not most people but it one of the many, many reasons I would be a horrific politician. 

From Dimple (via her assistant):

Quote

 

Thank you for your email and recommendations for the 2040 Plan.  I’ll take all perspectives into consideration prior to making a decision.

I would also encourage you to join the Charlotte Future 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Deeper Dive Discussion that is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16th at 12:00 pm or 5:30 pm.  The details are listed below. 

Participate live on the City of Charlotte:

YouTube Channel  https://www.youtube.com/user/CharlotteGOVchannel/featured

GOV Channel http://charlottenc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=669 or https://charlottenc.gov/newsroom/Pages/Gov_Channel.aspx

Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/CLTgov

 

 

From Mayor Lyles:

Quote

 

Thank you for your email.  The 2040 Comprehensive Plan is under review.  I’ve attached a link below with some ways the public can be involved and provide feedback. 

 https://cltfuture2040.com/

 

I'm disappointed in the lack of response from Larken and Braxton  even an acknowledgement that I sent mail (and I'll give Julie a  few days since I didn't send it to her until today).