Unified Development Ordinance

[Hushpuppy321]

9 hours ago, jjwilli said:

While there may be concerns from the “nicer” parts of town it also seems like they believe deed restriction may be their solution. Not sure if that’s true.
 

What’s really interesting is it appears that real opposition is coming from the believe that this plan will disproportionately negatively impact residents in the crescent. If most of the land in the crescent is owned by LLCs or can be acquired for a bargain due to historical inequalities in Charlotte  then the increased in density will be highly concentrated in these areas that are perhaps the least equipped for those changes. Not sure what the answer is there or even how large this perceived issue is.

 

I think folks in South Charlotte are worried about the impact of neighboring properties changing to Multifamily (duplex, triplex, etc) beside their SFH.  Many homes are owned by investment companies that would do just that.  How would existing Restrictive Covenants impact the abolishing of SFH Zoning ?

[SgtCampsalot]

19 hours ago, kermit said:

Ely has a nice summary of the ridiculous council meeting last night where everyone feigned surprise at what was in the UDO:

https://ui.uncc.edu/story/2020-was-supposed-be-‘year-plan’-what-happened

Someone needs to tell the council to pull their heads out of their asses. Not implementing the UDO will either choke us to death from congestion or end our growth due to increased housing costs (or a combination of both).  This is an existential issue for the city, we don't have time for this pearl-clutching bullsh1t.

 

Am I reading this right that many on City Council want to start a 3-year process over because THEY did not read what Planning has been doing the entire time??

[a2theb]

12 hours ago, kermit said:

 

Not only would this change increase property values for landowners, but it would also allow for increased densities which would improve walkability and make it more efficient to serve neighborhoods with transit. More immediately the change would reduce pressure on home prices in intown neighborhoods since the change would increase the number of units available.

 

I am all for increasing housing availability in every neighborhood in the city and love the character the quads and duplexes adds to my specific neighborhood.

 

My only concern with this is keeping developers in check with "in town" neighborhood development so we don't end up with 3rd Ward (specifically Westbrook and Greenleaf) 2.0  which has absolutely destroyed the integrity of an older neighborhood.  We have seen that even with the proper zoning, the city does not have the proper checks in place to prevent SFHs from being torn down and replaced with "Luxury" townhomes. 

[InTheYear2000]

19 minutes ago, a2theb said:

I am all for increasing housing availability in every neighborhood in the city and love the character the quads and duplexes adds to my specific neighborhood.

 

My only concern with this is keeping developers in check with "in town" neighborhood development so we don't end up with 3rd Ward (specifically Westbrook and Greenleaf) 2.0  which has absolutely destroyed the integrity of an older neighborhood.  We have seen that even with the proper zoning, the city does not have the proper checks in place to prevent SFHs from being torn down and replaced with "Luxury" townhomes. 

I understand your concern and it is valid. I favor zoning that encourages and in some cases requires density because at the macro level increasing housing supply is at the core of affordable housing. A 3rd ward SFH would have been subject to gentrification with or with out the Multifamily and the pragmatic side of me contends that we have now absorbed two "luxury" market buyers rather than one.

I do wish those town homes weren't hardie board boxes with giant garages. Maybe some sort of contextual zoning overlay can fix that. 

[tozmervo]

the garages are a problem, hardie board is a decent cladding material, though. worlds beyond vinyl siding. 

[RANYC]

I value density.

But in many sunbelt cities, especially in Florida, I've seen the following formula:

DENSITY + "CAR-CENTRICITY" = A WHOLE LOT OF UGLY

What happens?  People run to gated communities and planned communities, walling themselves off from the ugly in the broader community.

Countless times I've seen car-centric, garage-predominated communities morph into duplexes and and tri-plexes, and you end up with cars filling up driveways and even parked on lawns.  Drive down a street and cars everywhere as an offshoot of the spike in car-centric density.  You then think, well we're letting all these extra things happen within properties, but we'll have design standards and enforcement.  But those Review and Enforcement Offices get so overwhelmed, they become feckless, and ultimately no one is going to take a super hard line over someone's habitat because of a breach of a design standard. 

Charlotte isn't going to wake up after passage of the UDO and look like Munich (and believe me I'd love to look like Munich).  Too car-dominated and car-obsessed, and the car obsession is too entrenched culturally. 

I'm for Zoning flexibility in areas that are already demonstrably TRANSIT-CENTRIC or close to it.  If not TRANSIT-CENTRIC at present (and when I say Transit-centric, I mean all the way up until last-mile considerations), then I'm 100% skeptical of this thing.

and bone-head braxton isn't helping by giving this a race-based dimension.  that's really going to ossify the skepticism  of and resistance toward any sort of re-work of the zoning code to at least allow for more proximal housing-type diversity.   tweeting to people that their concerns are just a manifestation of racism and privilege...like wth

Edited March 3, 2021 by RANYC

[Norm2]

2 hours ago, RANYC said:

I value density.

But in many sunbelt cities, especially in Florida, I've seen the following formula:

DENSITY + "CAR-CENTRICITY" = A WHOLE LOT OF UGLY

What happens?  People run to gated communities and planned communities, walling themselves off from the ugly in the broader community.

Countless times I've seen car-centric, garage-predominated communities morph into duplexes and and tri-plexes, and you end up with cars filling up driveways and even parked on lawns.  Drive down a street and cars everywhere as an offshoot of the spike in car-centric density.  You then think, well we're letting all these extra things happen within properties, but we'll have design standards and enforcement.  But those Review and Enforcement Offices get so overwhelmed, they become feckless, and ultimately no one is going to take a super hard line over someone's habitat because of a breach of a design standard. 

Charlotte isn't going to wake up after passage of the UDO and look like Munich (and believe me I'd love to look like Munich).  Too car-dominated and car-obsessed, and the car obsession is too entrenched culturally. 

I'm for Zoning flexibility in areas that are already demonstrably TRANSIT-CENTRIC or close to it.  If not TRANSIT-CENTRIC at present (and when I say Transit-centric, I mean all the way up until last-mile considerations), then I'm 100% skeptical of this thing.

and bone-head braxton isn't helping by giving this a race-based dimension.  that's really going to ossify the skepticism  of and resistance toward any sort of re-work of the zoning code to at least allow for more proximal housing-type diversity.   tweeting to people that their concerns are just a manifestation of racism and privilege...like wth

Braxton may have the wrong approach, but it is in fact a privilege to own a SFH. Many of the intown neighborhoods were built upon racism due to deed restrictions and red lining. These same neighborhoods are of course popular and are priced above what many people of color can afford. Even if racism isn't a factor, SFH neighborhoods do support classism (the separation of social/income classes). None of these are good for our society.

[RANYC]

5 minutes ago, norm21499 said:

Braxton may have the wrong approach, but it is in fact a privilege to own a SFH. Many of the intown neighborhoods were built upon racism due to deed restrictions and red lining. These same neighborhoods are of course popular and are priced above what many people of color can afford. Even if racism isn't a factor, SFH neighborhoods do support classism (the separation of social/income classes). None of these are good for our society.

skeptical of defining this issue on racial lines.  Charlotte is incredibly diverse, and relative to other sunbelt cities, we have a large black professional and black ownership class.  There's a substantial number of them in all types of neighborhoods in both South Charlotte and North Charlotte, and I'd venture that many of them don't want Car-Centric Density over-running their subdivisions either.  They've got the same property value integrity concerns as white owners.  By the way, I'm not here to audit people's life choices or the trail of their choices leading to their current situations, but the suggestion that owning a SFH is all privilege, without regard for the huge long-term commitment and sacrifice that comes with such ownership, is a bit glib.   Not everyone owning a SFH in Charlotte has inherited it and I reject the presumption that my ownership is thievery to someone else.

Edited March 3, 2021 by RANYC

[RANYC]

Having said all that, I did find a model in what Charlotte is trying to achieve - Columbia, MD.  However, the intention for mixed-income density was a part of the drawing board plans for the community and planners/developers were able to engender this from scratch.  Very different situation in established areas of Charlotte.

[kermit]

So if the council decides to reject the UDO and its elimination of SF exclusive zoning for what sound like aesthetic reasons, what alternate strategies should Charlotte take for reducing the carbon outputs of an auto dependent population and for providing more affordable housing?

Edited March 4, 2021 by kermit

[RANYC]

Just now, kermit said:

So if the council decides to reject the UDO and its elimination of SF exclusive zoning for what sound like aesthetic reasons, what strategy should Charlotte take for reducing the carbon outputs of an auto dependent population?

Don't think all of it should be rejected.  I'm for eliminating SF-exclusive zoning in areas and along corridors that are demonstrably trasit-centric (down to last-mile considerations).  As we extend and expand the reach of transit deeper and deeperinto neighborhoods, then we create more opportunities for up-zoning.  But eliminating SF-exclusive zoning in current subdivisions that are quite removed from transit, to me, is premature.

[Norm2]

1 hour ago, RANYC said:

skeptical of defining this issue on racial lines.  Charlotte is incredibly diverse, and relative to other sunbelt cities, we have a large black professional and black ownership class.  There's a substantial number of them in all types of neighborhoods in both South Charlotte and North Charlotte, and I'd venture that many of them don't want Car-Centric Density over-running their subdivisions either.  They've got the same property value integrity concerns as white owners.  By the way, I'm not here to audit people's life choices or the trail of their choices leading to their current situations, but the suggestion that owning a SFH is all privilege, without regard for the huge long-term commitment and sacrifice that comes with such ownership, is a bit glib.   Not everyone owning a SFH in Charlotte has inherited it and I reject the presumption that my ownership is thievery to someone else.

You might be skeptical, but there a number of reasons why Charlotte has a "Wedge" and a "Crescent". This issue will hopefully be one of many to help remedy this.

[kermit]

 

 

 

[SgtCampsalot]

This kind of thing  (below) saps my energy and makes positive change through policy seem impossible:

 

[atl2clt]

6 hours ago, RANYC said:

skeptical of defining this issue on racial lines.  Charlotte is incredibly diverse, and relative to other sunbelt cities, we have a large black professional and black ownership class.  There's a substantial number of them in all types of neighborhoods in both South Charlotte and North Charlotte, and I'd venture that many of them don't want Car-Centric Density over-running their subdivisions either.  They've got the same property value integrity concerns as white owners.  By the way, I'm not here to audit people's life choices or the trail of their choices leading to their current situations, but the suggestion that owning a SFH is all privilege, without regard for the huge long-term commitment and sacrifice that comes with such ownership, is a bit glib.   Not everyone owning a SFH in Charlotte has inherited it and I reject the presumption that my ownership is thievery to someone else.

I would disagree here. Zoning laws are, almost by definition, an act of racial inclusion/exclusion. For a comprehensive understanding of this thesis, I highly recommend the book The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein, which was a 2017 New York Times Bestseller. 

To summarize the key points of the book (and the relevant US history it details), zoning laws were adopted aggressively across the United States during the post-war period in the mid-1940s. In 1948, SCOTUS prohibited the enforcement of racially-restrictive covenants (i.e., provisions in property deeds that stated "this property shall not be transferred to any persons of the non-white race"). So, as a result, homeowners had to find new, more innocuous ways to keep non-white (well, specifically black) families out of their neighborhoods. For many homeowners, it wasn't that they explicitly endorsed segregation; it was that they wanted to "preserve property values." The thinking was (and probably still is) that the introduction of black families into white neighborhoods will inevitably cause housing prices to fall. So, rather than relying on racially-motivated housing policies, suburban white communities had to rely policies that, on their face, were race-neutral:

• Single-family zoning laws: artificially limit the stock of housing supply so that there are fewer opportunities for non-white families to enter. 
• Homeowners associations: these popped up almost exclusively for purposes of creating racially-homogenous communities for white families. Rather than explicitly stating "no black families allowed" via racially restrictive covenants, homeowners' associations could accomplish similar goals with race-neutral language. HOA policies were often designed to regulate a neighborhood's aesthetic feel, which often came to detriment of black homeowners who didn't fit the part. Restrictions against renting, or having too many family members living a single residence, or even the type or number of vehicles parked in your driveway proved great methods of keeping undesirables out. 
• Federal housing policy: in the early to mid-20th century, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) drew highly detailed maps of just about every municipality in the country. It marked specific neighborhoods in different colors, classifying them based on their perceived level of credit risk (though, to my understanding, the FHA lacked any concrete metrics to support these credit classifications). Invariably, white suburban neighborhoods were classified by the FHA as "low-risk", while black neighborhoods were classified as "high-risk." These classifications were used by banks and originators in underwriting mortgage loans, which meant that homeowners in white neighborhoods received lower interest rates than homeowners in black neighborhoods, even if separated only by a few blocks and even if the borrowers had the same level of income. 
•  Blockbusting: selling and renting to black homeowners proved highly lucrative. Investors could extract significantly higher interest rates from black homeowners than white homeowners, so real estate firms would engage in the practice of "blockbusting." In the borderline communities between white and black neighborhoods, real estate firms would post notices to white families that "African-Americans are moving in, so you better sell now before it's too late." These firms would even pay black people to engage in "intimidation tactics," like having black mothers push strollers through white neighborhoods. Once enough white homeowners moved out, real estate investors could swoop in, buy the properties at depressed prices, and then lease/sell the properties to black homeowners at higher prices. Rinse, wash, repeat.

I could go on. The point is that this stuff didn't happen that long ago. Blockbusting wasn't officially outlawed until the 1980s. That's when my parents first bought a home—only one or two generations ago. The effect of these policies is felt all around us today. When you drive through Charlotte, it's easy to notice that something like 80% of the city is zoned for single-family residential. There's a reason for that, and there's a reason that black families live "over there." It's not just mysterious market forces of a capitalism that made that happen. It was a long, careful process with thousands of people, from individual HOA communities all the way up to the federal government, pulling strings to make sure that we "preserve property values." 

Charlotte is among the worst cities in the country for economic mobility. "Mecklenburg County ranks 96th overall among the nation's 100 largest counties for upward mobility," according to a study summarized by WFAE (https://www.wfae.org/local-news/2020-11-20/report-confirms-charlottes-lack-of-upward-mobility-offers-priorities). So, no, I do not agree that this city bolsters a strong community of minority business owners or minority voices. Zoning laws play no small part in that. It's the reason why poor kids go to "that" school. It's the reason why you don't shop at "that" Wal-Mart. And it's the reason why this city will struggle to integrate between socio-economic boundaries. 

Here, concerning the UDO, I do not suspect the entire plan will be scrapped. However, any changes to single-family zoning will be extremely watered down by the time this comes to fruition. Why? Because money wins. The communities with money, I guarantee, will win this fight—just as they did last century and they will this century. 

(Btw, sorry for the essay). 

Edited March 4, 2021 by atl2clt

[CLTranspo]

12 minutes ago, atl2clt said:

I would disagree here. Zoning laws are, almost by definition, an act of racial inclusion/exclusion. For a comprehensive understanding of this thesis, I highly recommend the book The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein, which was a 2017 New York Times Bestseller. 

To summarize the key points of the book (and the relevant US history it details), zoning laws were adopted aggressively across the United States during the post-war period in the mid-1940s. In 1948, SCOTUS prohibited the enforcement of racially-restrictive covenants (i.e., provisions in property deeds that stated "this property shall not be transferred to any persons of the non-white race"). So, as a result, homeowners had to find new, more innocuous ways to keep non-white (well, specifically black) families out of their neighborhoods. For many homeowners, it wasn't that they explicitly endorsed segregation; it was that they wanted to "preserve property values." The thinking was (and probably still is) that the introduction of black families into white neighborhoods will inevitably cause housing prices to fall. So, rather than relying on racially-motivated housing policies, suburban white communities had to rely policies that, on their face, were race-neutral:

• Single-family zoning laws: artificially limit the stock of housing supply so that there are fewer opportunities for non-white families to enter. 
• Homeowners associations: these popped up almost exclusively for purposes of creating racially-homogenous communities for white families. Rather than explicitly stating "no black families allowed" via racially restrictive covenants, homeowners' associations could accomplish similar goals with race-neutral language. HOA policies were often designed to regulate a neighborhood's aesthetic feel, which often came to detriment of black homeowners who didn't fit the part. Restrictions against renting, or having too many family members living a single residence, or even the type or number of vehicles parked in your driveway proved great methods of keeping undesirables out. 
• Federal housing policy: in the early to mid-20th century, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) drew highly detailed maps of just about every municipality in the country. It marked specific neighborhoods in different colors, classifying them based on their perceived level of credit risk (though, to my understanding, the FHA lacked any concrete metrics to support these credit classifications). Invariably, white suburban neighborhoods were classified by the FHA as "low-risk", while black neighborhoods were classified as "high-risk." These classifications were used by banks and originators in underwriting mortgage loans, which meant that homeowners in white neighborhoods received lower interest rates than homeowners in black neighborhoods, even if separated only by a few blocks and even if the borrowers had the same level of income. 
•  Blockbusting: selling and renting to black homeowners proved highly lucrative. Investors could extract significantly higher interest rates from black homeowners than white homeowners, so real estate firms would engage in the practice of "blockbusting." In the borderline communities between white and black neighborhoods, real estate firms would post notices to white families that "African-Americans are moving in, so you better sell now before it's too late." These firms would even pay black people to engage in "intimidation tactics," like having black mothers push strollers through white neighborhoods. Once enough white homeowners moved out, real estate investors could swoop in, buy the properties at depressed prices, and then lease/sell the properties to black homeowners at higher prices. Rinse, wash, repeat.

I could go on. The point is that this stuff didn't happen that long ago. Blockbusting wasn't officially outlawed until the 1980s. That's when my parents first bought a home—only one or two generations ago. The effect of these policies is felt all around us today. When you drive through Charlotte, it's easy to notice that something like 80% of the city is zoned for single-family residential. There's a reason for that, and there's a reason that black families live "over there." It's not just mysterious market forces of a capitalism that made that happen. It was a long, careful process with thousands of people, from individual HOA communities all the way up to the federal government, pulling strings to make sure that we "preserve property values." 

Charlotte is among the worst cities in the country for economic mobility. "Mecklenburg County ranks 96th overall among the nation's 100 largest counties for upward mobility," according to a study summarized by WFAE (https://www.wfae.org/local-news/2020-11-20/report-confirms-charlottes-lack-of-upward-mobility-offers-priorities). So, no, I do not agree that this city bolsters a strong community of minority business owners or minority voices. Zoning laws play no small part in that. It's the reason why poor kids go to "that" school. It's the reason why you don't shop at "that" Wal-Mart. And it's the reason why this city will struggle to integrate between socio-economic boundaries. 

Here, concerning the UDO, I do not suspect the entire plan will be scrapped. However, any changes to single-family zoning will be extremely watered down by the time this comes to fruition. Why? Because money wins. The communities with money, I guarantee, will win this fight—just as they did last century and they will this century. 

(Btw, sorry for the essay). 

Thank you for saying this! To have a fully informed opinion on single family zoning, and how it does - demonstrably - continue to relate to race in our country and in our city, I totally recommend reading this book (The Color of Law). 

[RANYC]

34 minutes ago, atl2clt said:

I would disagree here. Zoning laws are, almost by definition, an act of racial inclusion/exclusion. For a comprehensive understanding of this thesis, I highly recommend the book The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein, which was a 2017 New York Times Bestseller. 

To summarize the key points of the book (and the relevant US history it details), zoning laws were adopted aggressively across the United States during the post-war period in the mid-1940s. In 1948, SCOTUS prohibited the enforcement of racially-restrictive covenants (i.e., provisions in property deeds that stated "this property shall not be transferred to any persons of the non-white race"). So, as a result, homeowners had to find new, more innocuous ways to keep non-white (well, specifically black) families out of their neighborhoods. For many homeowners, it wasn't that they explicitly endorsed segregation; it was that they wanted to "preserve property values." The thinking was (and probably still is) that the introduction of black families into white neighborhoods will inevitably cause housing prices to fall. So, rather than relying on racially-motivated housing policies, suburban white communities had to rely policies that, on their face, were race-neutral:

• Single-family zoning laws: artificially limit the stock of housing supply so that there are fewer opportunities for non-white families to enter. 
• Homeowners associations: these popped up almost exclusively for purposes of creating racially-homogenous communities for white families. Rather than explicitly stating "no black families allowed" via racially restrictive covenants, homeowners' associations could accomplish similar goals with race-neutral language. HOA policies were often designed to regulate a neighborhood's aesthetic feel, which often came to detriment of black homeowners who didn't fit the part. Restrictions against renting, or having too many family members living a single residence, or even the type or number of vehicles parked in your driveway proved great methods of keeping undesirables out. 
• Federal housing policy: in the early to mid-20th century, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) drew highly detailed maps of just about every municipality in the country. It marked specific neighborhoods in different colors, classifying them based on their perceived level of credit risk (though, to my understanding, the FHA lacked any concrete metrics to support these credit classifications). Invariably, white suburban neighborhoods were classified by the FHA as "low-risk", while black neighborhoods were classified as "high-risk." These classifications were used by banks and originators in underwriting mortgage loans, which meant that homeowners in white neighborhoods received lower interest rates than homeowners in black neighborhoods, even if separated only by a few blocks and even if the borrowers had the same level of income. 
•  Blockbusting: selling and renting to black homeowners proved highly lucrative. Investors could extract significantly higher interest rates from black homeowners than white homeowners, so real estate firms would engage in the practice of "blockbusting." In the borderline communities between white and black neighborhoods, real estate firms would post notices to white families that "African-Americans are moving in, so you better sell now before it's too late." These firms would even pay black people to engage in "intimidation tactics," like having black mothers push strollers through white neighborhoods. Once enough white homeowners moved out, real estate investors could swoop in, buy the properties at depressed prices, and then lease/sell the properties to black homeowners at higher prices. Rinse, wash, repeat.

I could go on. The point is that this stuff didn't happen that long ago. Blockbusting wasn't officially outlawed until the 1980s. That's when my parents first bought a home—only one or two generations ago. The effect of these policies is felt all around us today. When you drive through Charlotte, it's easy to notice that something like 80% of the city is zoned for single-family residential. There's a reason for that, and there's a reason that black families live "over there." It's not just mysterious market forces of a capitalism that made that happen. It was a long, careful process with thousands of people, from individual HOA communities all the way up to the federal government, pulling strings to make sure that we "preserve property values." (As a side note, I also find it ironic that Republicans are usually the staunchest supporters of single-family zoning, though this seems to me the antithesis of a free market housing environment). 

Charlotte is among the worst cities in the country for economic mobility. "Mecklenburg County ranks 96th overall among the nation's 100 largest counties for upward mobility," according to a study summarized by WFAE (https://www.wfae.org/local-news/2020-11-20/report-confirms-charlottes-lack-of-upward-mobility-offers-priorities). So, no, I do not agree that this city bolsters a strong community of minority business owners or minority voices. Zoning laws play no small part in that. It's the reason why poor kids go to "that" school. It's the reason why you don't shop at "that" Wal-Mart. And it's the reason why this city will struggle to integrate between socio-economic boundaries. 

Here, concerning the UDO, I do not suspect the entire plan will be scrapped. However, any changes to single-family zoning will be extremely watered down by the time this comes to fruition. Why? Because money wins. The communities with money, I guarantee, will win this fight—just as they did last century and they will this century. 

(Btw, sorry for the essay). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haven't read the book.  May consider it.  

Did the author refer to "residential zoning laws," and not just zoning laws, in general?  Believe the earliest zoning laws were meant to restrict industrial and dirty land uses from encroaching on the places where people call home. 

I do think there's intentional segregation in America, but frankly, I'd posit that it's intentional segregation along economic lines and probably along lines concerning a sense of shared values.  Haven't seen survey data on this, but based on what I see in Charlotte, I simply need to be convinced otherwise that most Charlotteans in middle class neighborhoods don't give a hoot about the race or color of their neighbors, as long as they believe those neighbors are in a similar economic tier and lead similar lives with similar expectations for how the neighborhood will function.  Whether it's poor blacks or poor whites, I think the issue in 2021 is a fear of mixed-income or mixed-means integration, with people often believing that those of starkly different economic means, have starkly different social and moral values.

Edited March 4, 2021 by RANYC

[Hushpuppy321]

6 hours ago, kermit said:

So if the council decides to reject the UDO and its elimination of SF exclusive zoning for what sound like aesthetic reasons, what alternate strategies should Charlotte take for reducing the carbon outputs of an auto dependent population and for providing more affordable housing?

I would agree with the idea that the SFH Zoning exclusion should be for the transit corridors if the UDO 2040 Plan fails.  I think someone else on here mentioned that go between idea

[atl2clt]

21 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Did the author refer to "residential zoning laws," and not just zoning laws, in general?

The author also goes into detail about how industrial zoning laws apply to current residential patterns. Sewage treatment facilities and landfill centers, for instance, are disproportionately found in black communities. Researchers at the University of Michigan found that "more than half of all people in the United States who live within 3.0 kilometers (1.86 miles) of a hazardous waste facility are people of color" (https://news.umich.edu/targeting-minority-low-income-neighborhoods-for-hazardous-waste-sites/). 

As a side note, I'd recommend the book. It sounds like you'd enjoy it. It's a quick read and well-written. You can get the paperback for like $12 on Amazon.

[Blue_Devil]

7 hours ago, atl2clt said:

The author also goes into detail about how industrial zoning laws apply to current residential patterns. Sewage treatment facilities and landfill centers, for instance, are disproportionately found in black communities. Researchers at the University of Michigan found that "more than half of all people in the United States who live within 3.0 kilometers (1.86 miles) of a hazardous waste facility are people of color" (https://news.umich.edu/targeting-minority-low-income-neighborhoods-for-hazardous-waste-sites/). 

As a side note, I'd recommend the book. It sounds like you'd enjoy it. It's a quick read and well-written. You can get the paperback for like $12 on Amazon.

I wonder if there is a chicken and the egg argument there. What came first the neighborhood, and then they put a plant? or was it the plant and because land prices were cheap a poor neighborhood. 

In a lot of cases it very well could be neighborhood first. Just look at Durham.... 

[Nathan2]

15 hours ago, RANYC said:

Don't think all of it should be rejected.  I'm for eliminating SF-exclusive zoning in areas and along corridors that are demonstrably trasit-centric (down to last-mile considerations).  As we extend and expand the reach of transit deeper and deeperinto neighborhoods, then we create more opportunities for up-zoning.  But eliminating SF-exclusive zoning in current subdivisions that are quite removed from transit, to me, is premature.

I think people are really getting too worked up over their subdivisions getting "ruined", when this most likely will only affect a small portion of neighborhoods in the city. Most subdivisions have covenants that restrict anything but single family homes on their lots. So alot of the people getting upset won't even have to worry about duplexes being built next to them. 

[Hushpuppy321]

3 minutes ago, Nathan2 said:

I think people are really getting too worked up over their subdivisions getting "ruined", when this most likely will only affect a small portion of neighborhoods in the city. Most subdivisions have covenants that restrict anything but single family homes on their lots. So alot of the people getting upset won't even have to worry about duplexes being built next to them. 

I think City Council is have the City Attorney research this because there is some open question about it 

[EllAyyDub]

General rule of thumb is the more restrictive covenant takes effect. Also LOL at MP requesting to vote no - so many corner duplexes being built in that neighborhood doing absolutely nothing to property values. That said, I'd be more in favor of a scaled approach where the closer a parcel is to transit, the 'denser' it can be (similar to the TOD method). Very fine with the UDO in general, however.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, RANYC said:

 

Haven't read the book.  May consider it.  

Did the author refer to "residential zoning laws," and not just zoning laws, in general?  Believe the earliest zoning laws were meant to restrict industrial and dirty land uses from encroaching on the places where people call home. 

I do think there's intentional segregation in America, but frankly, I'd posit that it's intentional segregation along economic lines and probably along lines concerning a sense of shared values.  Haven't seen survey data on this, but based on what I see in Charlotte, I simply need to be convinced otherwise that most Charlotteans in middle class neighborhoods don't give a hoot about the race or color of their neighbors, as long as they believe those neighbors are in a similar economic tier and lead similar lives with similar expectations for how the neighborhood will function.  Whether it's poor blacks or poor whites, I think the issue in 2021 is a fear of mixed-income or mixed-means integration, with people often believing that those of starkly different economic means, have starkly different social and moral values.

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.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Guest

[kermit]

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 keep housing costs low in a rapidly changing neighborhood"
• Community: "Wait! This street is too far from transit, 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." [there is a bus stop two blocks away]
• CATS: "We can't get federal funding to build rail transit to Seversville 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 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 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."
• 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, I insist that developers continue to build 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? Fucj 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 in this purgatory, our quality of life declines while our carbon outputs increase -- changes that will 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.  Many of these folks suggested that limiting the upzoning to transit corridors alone is a better approach. It might be more sensible in the short term, but will that more constrained approach be sufficient to remedy our housing cost, congestion and carbon problems? 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 eliminate SF zoning there, but lets keep the tax surcharge until densities in those areas 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 am no expert but it sure does look like our current unsustainable land use being used as an excuse to thwart realistic solutions. If the UDO gets gutted then I think it may be time for less carrot and more stick. Unfortunately our council seems to lack the sack for that.

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by kermit