Zoning and Affordable Housing

[arkitekte]

2 hours ago, Hey_Hey said:

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2017/10/14/prosecutors-push-jail-for-disabled-vietnam-veteran-over-zoning-violations/

Please specially note where violence by law enforcement was used to enforce zoning regulations [I'm serious. I could have overlooked it.]

That literally is exactly what I originally asked for. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by arkitekte

[ruraljuror]

5 minutes ago, arkitekte said:

Please specially note where violence by law enforcement was used to enforce zoning regulations [I'm serious. I could have overlooked it.]

That literally is exactly what I originally asked for. 

I think you're missing the larger point that some are trying to make here.  

If a homeless person were sleeping on a bench or a sidewalk or even in the middle of the street, there wouldn't be much that police officers could legally do to move them along if those areas were zoned as campgrounds.  As it is, if a police officer catches you in a park after dark, if they want you to leave they may start by asking nicely, but if you refuse those requests you will likely be violently removed from the park one way or another--and that goes for almost anyone, homeless or not.  

More directly to your point, imagine a scenario in which somebody decides to construct a 300 foot skyscraper in their suburban front yard.  The city would start by issuing fines and would escalate to closing off the worksite and turning away your construction crew...But it's your property, and if you climbed the fence and tried to go on building the tower with a hammer and nails, it wouldn't take long before you were being physically removed from the premises by law enforcement. 

This isn't specific to zoning law, of course, but law enforcement generally.  If you disagree with the IRS about your tax bill and refuse to pay the difference, they'll take you to court and try to garnish your wages, seize your property, and/or put you in jail.  If you choose not to submit to the arrest or don't want to hand over your property...violence.  

I think that's all anybody is really trying to say here.

 

 

 

[PruneTracy]

14 hours ago, MLBrumby said:

Gross!!! I wonder if our density fetishists see any limits there. 

I don't know what's not to like about it.

• Completely walkable, 100% car-free development at a human scale
• People live, work, and play downtown
• Very affordable housing
• Rooftop recreation
• Inexpensive health care
• Like five thousand locally-owned small businesses
• Two words: tall skinnies
• Not an e-scooter to be seen
• There probably was a Crossfit bar in there somewhere

Think about how much time and effort gets spent here in American cities to achieve what Hongkongers (?) did organically.

[dmillsphoto]

purge.

[Armacing]

Kind of amusing that this got moved to a separate thread, but whatever.  It just goes to show you that "in a time of universal deception, telling the truth is considered to be a revolutionary act".    By the way, I'm not taking credit for that wording, I'm paraphrasing a quote that is widely attributed to Gorge Orwell, although there is a possibility he never said it.

Also amusing:  The discussion had veered so far off topic as to contemplate the bodily stench of homeless people without objection from the audience, but heaven forbid someone bring up the subject of "Zoning" in a discussion about urban development.  That is a bridge-too-far!

[Armacing]

14 hours ago, Pdt2f said:

I don’t know why so many people in this thread are avoiding this obvious fact.

It's just a completely different world view that many people are never exposed to.  All the people on this board are of above-average intelligence, in my opinion.  I think many of them realize, perhaps at a subconscious level even, that discussing that "obvious fact" puts them in an untenable position, rhetorically speaking.

[Armacing]

10 hours ago, arkitekte said:

Please specially note where violence by law enforcement was used to enforce zoning regulations [I'm serious. I could have overlooked it.]

That literally is exactly what I originally asked for. 

Here is an article with several examples mentioned.  I found this using google.  This has more to do with codes than zoning, but the same logic applies:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-11/single-mother-arrested-for-grass-after-not-mowing

14 hours ago, arkitekte said:

Not at all. 

 You simply provided a hypothetical that never occurs. 

 

As opposed to a hypothetical that does occur?  let me guess, you don't engage in discussions surrounding hypothetical scenarios, right?  That must make life simple.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Armacing

[Pdt2f]

10 hours ago, arkitekte said:

Please specially note where violence by law enforcement was used to enforce zoning regulations [I'm serious. I could have overlooked it.]

That literally is exactly what I originally asked for. 

Well, at what point do you consider force and violence to be linked, or the same? If all options have been exhausted and someone refuses to stop building an illegal and unauthorized structure on their property, the state will use force to stop the illegal action. Just because it doesn’t happen often doesn’t mean it’s not on the table; if there wasn’t the implicit threat of force (arrest, imprisonment, property confiscation, etc) very few people would obey any law. I personally would consider being arrested against my will an act of violence on the part of the state, even if I’m not being physically harmed. I’ll put it this way, if you were at a playground and heard a young child yelling and saw that a stranger was restraining the child - not hurting him, or abucting him, but perhaps just pinning his arms to his side - would you consider that an act of violence? 

By the way, I consider moving this conversation away from the paramount thread extremely chickens###. The tower isn’t built yet - almost all of the conversation about it has to do with zoning, government use of land, etc- a conversation about the use of state force in zoning is completely relevant in that thread, especially since the conversation had remained civil, and especially since it didn’t seem to be particularly partisan. Some of you need to grow up and realize that just because you’re not interested in something being discussed doesn’t mean it needs to be banished. 

[Hey_Hey]

11 hours ago, arkitekte said:

Please specially note where violence by law enforcement was used to enforce zoning regulations [I'm serious. I could have overlooked it.]

That literally is exactly what I originally asked for. 

I would consider imprisonment an act of  violence. Clearly, in this case the prison sentence was suspended, but the threat of violence is absolutely real.  This isn't really up for discussion or debate as this isn't a matter of opinion.  Ultimately, the judiciary has the threat and act of violence (arrest, imprisonment, detainment, etc) at its disposal to deal with any legal issue, criminal or civil.  Getting away from zoning enforcement: A divorce proceeding is a civil issue. However, if a judge orders a husband to move out of the house and he refuses to do so the police will be called to forcibly remove him from the premises. In other words: violence.  

You're correct in saying that it is a rare occurrence to see police involved in any civil matter. However, I would argue that is because people ultimately know that if they refuse to comply with a civil decree then ultimately they could end up being forced by the police to comply. 

This is a quote from Stephen Carter, a Yale Law Professor on this very topic:

"Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence.  Every law is violent.  We try not to think about this, but we should.  On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.

This is by no means an argument against having laws.

It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal. Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff – or the SWAT team – or if necessary the National Guard. Is this an exaggeration? Ask the family of Eric Garner, who died as a result of a decision to crack down on the sale of untaxed cigarettes. That’s the crime for which he was being arrested. Yes, yes, the police were the proximate cause of his death, but the crackdown was a political decree.

The statute or regulation we like best carries the same risk that some violator will die at the hands of a law enforcement officer who will go too far. And whether that officer acts out of overzealousness, recklessness, or simply the need to make a fast choice to do the job right, the violence inherent in law will be on display. This seems to me the fundamental problem that none of us who do law for a living want to face.  

But all of us should."

 

 

[Armacing]

I wasn't even looking for this and it came through my news feed:

https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2019/01/family-planning-day-care-costs-zoning-cities-children/580279/

[Armacing]

20 hours ago, AronG said:

Somebody should start a forum called, like, urbanplanetforsmallgovernmententhusiasts for whatever it is that keeps happening to these threads. Then maybe we could talk more about Nashville's urban development on this one.

So a discussion about overly-restrictive zoning has no place in a forum dedicated to "Nashville's urban development"?  Good to know...

[Armacing]

15 hours ago, arkitekte said:

I want to take the time to respond to the posts where I was quoted.

We can resume in the coffee house, if y'all want.

Still waiting here for your responses.

[Armacing]

8 hours ago, BnaBreaker said:

 All I'm saying is that we could all, myself included, stand to be a bit more mindful of why we are all here. 

Agreed.  In the spirit of discussing issues of importance to urban development, I would be very interested in hearing your opinion about the impact of zoning, codes, property taxes, and other government mandated restrictions on land use as they relate to he cost of housing and, ultimately, homelessness.

[Hey_Hey]

I am not someone who is against all zoning. I think it serves a purpose to protect surrounding property owners rom egregious land misuse, but the problem with zoning is that there is considerable zoning inertia. Entrenched landowners are hesitant to allow their property to change in zoning designation as a city grows.  That results in an inability to increase density as a city grows which results in increased housing costs for all. Ironically, in many cases the best financial decision a homeowner could make would be to allow their property to increase in density because the land becomes more valuable.  However, we all know that land use and neighborhood issues are largely emotional ones driven by the perception of safety, congestion, noise, and community as opposed to analytical financial decisions. 

[KJHburg]

Here is what the little city of Savannah is doing about homelessness and affordable housing.  The city approved a 72 unit tiny house development for homeless vets.  Bigger cities like Nashville and Charlotte should take note.  Next time I am in hostess city I will swing by and take some photos for I am there a lot.  the founder of Savannah based Nine Line apparel is a major benefactor of this project.  

https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20190126/tiny-houses-just-down-payment-in-savannahs-battle-against-homelessness

https://www.wsav.com/news/local-news/construction-starts-on-site-of-tiny-house-project/1729051375

Maybe your Tony G developer could spearhead this in your city too.  

[Armacing]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 10:58 AM, Hey_Hey said:

 I think it serves a purpose to protect surrounding property owners rom egregious land misuse

I tend to think the court system is more appropriate for disputes arising from egregious land misuse, especially the types that are negatively impacting the ability of the neighbor to enjoy the use of their own property.

I think we could safely do away with zoning entirely, while at the same time setting up a new property dispute court system to handle any increase in the volume of disputes that make it to court.

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 6:12 PM, KJHburg said:

The city approved a 72 unit tiny house development for homeless vets. 

I am convinced that if it wasn't for restrictive zoning/codes, this type of development would be very wide spread and growing in popularity.  Just a simple survey of what is already being discussed on the internet shows you the enthusiasm for tiny houses has been growing steadily since the great recession of 2008.

[Armacing]

3 hours ago, nashvylle said:

I am stoked to see this development, but I pray Nashville can become a city that has a great mix of luxury developments as well as mixed-income developments. 

Agree with the need for more affordable housing.   The oppressive zoning, codes, and generally high burden of property taxes in Davidson county has made it hard for developers to justify affordable housing developments.  If only the citizens of this county were allowed to build their own houses using the traditional building methods that they wish to employ.

[Hey_Hey]

I came across this today which happened in Nashville:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2019/02/26/nashville-airbnb-operator-jail-sentence-layton-jones-city-code/2993986002/

An AirBNB operator in Nashville repeatedly violated the civil court order to cease operations.  When he continued to operate the AirBNB out of his home the judge sentenced him to jail time plus a $20k fine. Ouch. 

[Rockatansky]

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

high burden of property taxes in Davidson county

Metro's current property tax rate is the lowest in its history and the lowest of any of the 4 major cities in Tennessee.

[Armacing]

2 hours ago, Rockatansky said:

Metro's current property tax rate is the lowest in its history and the lowest of any of the 4 major cities in Tennessee.

Be that as it may, there is no disputing the fact that even the poorest property owner would be forced to help pay for extravagant public projects such as stadiums, arenas, amphitheaters, and convention centers.  All facilities that (arguably) could be built and operated by private companies.

4 hours ago, Hey_Hey said:

I came across this today which happened in Nashville:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2019/02/26/nashville-airbnb-operator-jail-sentence-layton-jones-city-code/2993986002/

An AirBNB operator in Nashville repeatedly violated the civil court order to cease operations.  When he continued to operate the AirBNB out of his home the judge sentenced him to jail time plus a $20k fine. Ouch. 

Wow, good find.  And yet, a large number of people would rationalize this as "OK" somehow in their mind.  That's the sad part.... that people support the trampling of other peoples rights and freedoms for the sake of... what?  Convenience?  Money?  Aesthetics? Probably money, when it comes right down to it.  I know there might be a few aggrieved neighbors, but I am convinced that the root of this opposition to AirBNB comes from the vested interests of the hotel lobby in this town.

[Armacing]

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 1:54 PM, PaulChinetti said:

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/02/19/new-orleans-reducing-homeless-hurricane-katrina
 

Here is how New Orleans is dealing  with their homeless population. Get them off the streets and into homes at all costs. They are a smaller city but I don't see why it can't work here. 

Great article!  We should definitely not be placing pre-conditions on people's right to have housing.  I would argue New Orleans would be better served simply giving houses and land to homeless people rather than renting it for them.  Deed it to the people who need it as a one-time cost rather than a recurring expense.

Plus, a thorough investigation of the factors that make housing expensive in NOLA would be warranted as well, in my opinion.  Same goes for every other city.  Sometimes high prices are driven by regulations rather than the market, and that is a problem that can be easily addressed.

[Armacing]

4 hours ago, dReAmWiELdEr said:

Amen! This is a new shift in thinking that actually gives true assistance where needed while achieving an overall financial benefit as well. (Admittedly, I teared up a little while reading this article, especially during the “veterans” part.)

It doesn't go far enough, really.  The should be giving the houses to the homeless, not renting them.  There is probably plenty of government-owned land in NOLA that could be subdivided into micro-lots and deeded to the homeless.

[Bos2Nash]

Interesting video on the "Housing Shortage". There is some conspiratorial bits in the video, but I think it is very interesting when overlaying information together and looking at correlation. By looking at the information presented in this way, one could reasonably say the housing shortage is artificially created by wall street and the investment houses that are buying up all the housing that families would otherwise be buying. 

 

[Armacing]

3 hours ago, Bos2Nash said:

Interesting video on the "Housing Shortage". There is some conspiratorial bits in the video, but I think it is very interesting when overlaying information together and looking at correlation. By looking at the information presented in this way, one could reasonably say the housing shortage is artificially created by wall street and the investment houses that are buying up all the housing that families would otherwise be buying. 

The job of "buying up all the housing" is made easier by the government's complicity:  Limiting the supply of housing to such a low level that it becomes an attractive target for investment firms to corner the market.  If the free market were allowed to function and housing supplies could fluctuate with demand freely, then the investment firms would not be so quick to dump billions into a market that is not rigged in their favor by artificially limited supply.   

How about we completely de-regulate housing and land use and let the market build wide open?  I would love to see those residential-property investment firms take a huge loss in terms of real-estate values and drastically lower rents.  In my opinion it would serve them right for building a business model around government oppression.  For a freedom-loving libertarian such as myself, nothing is quite so sweet as watching a huge corporation who's revenue was back-stopped by the government suddenly whither under the mercilessly unyielding pressure of the free market.

[Bos2Nash]

The idea of de-regulating the construction industry - ie eliminate zoning laws - is just not rooted in our reality. Plain and simple. 

The US has a homeownership rate of 65.5% as of last year. How many of those homes would then put under water with their mortgagees due to your mass de-regulation and loss in home value? How many people lose their homes because their equity is now gone and they have a life emergency that they otherwise would use their house as collateral to gain additional funds and as a result are foreclosed on? We talk about DADUs or other means of adding additional living space to homes, how does that then happen if folks can't borrow money because they are so underwater on their home that no banks will lend them money?

I agree, I would love to see the investment houses who are artificially driving up home costs because they have access to easy money take a hit, but de-regulation just is not the answer. 

Economics is not the only factor either. Understanding the built environment and the social impacts of the built environment are imperative. Take East Nashville for example. A massive de-regulation of zoning laws would most likely create a free for all of urban renewal in East. Established neighborhoods where residents have lived for 40+ years would either be bought up at most likely a disastrously low rate OR they don't sell until a developer builds something directly next to their home that is so uncomfortable they feel the need to move. There is sooooo much more to these things than economics alone, BUT the investment houses are only seeing the economics and as a result are driving up the costs for their economic spreadsheets knowing that people always need housing so they can pay high and rent high and some people will be willing to pay it because they feel like they have no choice.

Zoning laws have a share in the housing costs crisis we are having, but I would say the investment houses (ie Wall Street) carry a much higher blame rate. Zoning laws such as SFH zoning keeps neighborhoods low(er) density, which creates a sense of success because owning a SFH is part of the established "American Dream" and having a SFH with an urban setting is not the best use of land. But the free market deems that to be pretty desirable because you get the "American Dream" while also benefiting from the urban benefits. so the market drives that cost. I don't need to explain the logic of why investment houses are buying up these properties, because it seems clear cut. 

Now, some Nashville SFH zoning policies allows up to 11 units of housing per acre, not that it is common, but doable. This would add density to the SFH parcels in the county for sure, but SFH developers who are subdividing land typically are looking at platted parcels of 50x150 which creates 7,500 SF lots. That is just shy of 6 units per acre. So part of this is also the developers who are only building to a certain size parcel. 

Lastly, you talk about de-regulation would massively cut the cost of land and then housing would become much easier to build? What about the labor to build all this housing? We have a labor shortage now, when more builders are looking to build more, who is going to work for such builders? Builders are going to have to lure employees to come work for them with higher wages and higher benefits thus driving construction costs back up, thus passing along those costs to the developer who passes them on to the buyers. In this scenario, de-regulation just moves the can from one issue and creates another one.