Jump to content

Moratorium on Commercial/Multi-Family Development


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 17
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think this makes a lot of sense if the city of Greenville wants to be serious about the comprehensive plan.  It's approved, so the logical thing is to not allow future development until all necessar

I lived in California for 20 years before moving to Greenville and assure you UrbanLover569 is right . California's restrictions on development are insane, developers have to run a crazy gauntlet of s

On tonight's City Council agenda. Moratorium on new commercial and multi-family development adjacent to single-family residential.  https://www.greenvillesc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/8168?fi

Doesn’t apply to the CBD thank goodness so therefore I don’t care. Also, doesn’t apply for Unity Park area and projects already approved.

Edited by gman430
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, gman430 said:

Doesn’t apply to the CBD thank goodness so therefore I don’t care. Also, doesn’t apply for Unity Park area and projects already approved.

Council postponed action to April. If the moratorium goes through, I think it will have a bigger impact than you think it will. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SteveHarveyOswald said:

Council postponed action to April. If the moratorium goes through, I think it will have a bigger impact than you think it will. 

How exactly? The city is pretty much built up and this only applies for properties next to single family residences. The vast majority of potential redevelopment commercial sites like Haywood Mall for example aren’t next to single family residences. 

Edited by gman430
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gman430 said:

How exactly? The city is pretty much built up and this only applies for properties next to single family residences. The vast majority of potential redevelopment commercial sites like Haywood Mall for example aren’t next to single family residences. 

It applies to properties that 'abut' single-family residences, even at the rear. This essentially takes all of Stone Ave off the books. Significant portions of Laurens, Pleasantburg, Augusta are impacted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SteveHarveyOswald said:

It applies to properties that 'abut' single-family residences, even at the rear. This essentially takes all of Stone Ave off the books. Significant portions of Laurens, Pleasantburg, Augusta are impacted. 

Meh, it would only be for six months and nothing worth losing sleep over is being planned right now anyways thanks to Covid. Basically, we will have two new car washes instead of three. :D 

Edited by gman430
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this makes a lot of sense if the city of Greenville wants to be serious about the comprehensive plan.  It's approved, so the logical thing is to not allow future development until all necessary zoning regulations and ordinances are set into place.  This won't impact the Unity Park development, County Square development, and downtown development which are really the 3 most important things to keep moving.  Everything else can wait 6 months...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StrangeCock said:

This is insanity. The moratorium should be on single-family homes, not multi-family residences. They're literally doing the opposite of what they should be doing.

I understand your frustration and am in favor of increasing density primarily downtown, but also across the city's relatively small area.  However, if regulation updates are not implemented, then there will be little control over what can be built on any property in any part of the city, including open spaces.

I do have serious questions regarding the statement of concern that increasing pedestrian activity will change the character of some neighborhoods.  Is that (more people walking/running/cycling) not a goal we should strive to achieve?  The best places in Greenville today are those where pedestrian activity is flourishing.  Let's all honestly consider the changes we have seen in various neighborhoods along and near the Swamp Rabbit Trail.  Would any of these places (including the downtowns in Greenville and Travelers Rest) resemble their current level of economic vitality without the existing streams of pedestrians?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like they don’t have the votes for it to pass thank goodness:

“Four members of council — Mayor Knox White, Brasington, John DeWorken and Russell Stall — are against it. Councilmember Dorothy Dowe is undecided and wants to see community feedback before she makes a decision, she said. Lillian Flemming and Ken Gibson support the moratorium.” A 

Edited by gman430
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2021/03/24/greenville-sc-considers-moratorium-fight-commercial-creep-city-council/6966499002/

It is sad when people apparently prefer to live in an almost third world state of existence even if opportunities to develop into a prosperous and wholesome first world community are abundantly available.  This applies to countless neighborhoods all over this nation.  I'm not saying they should all be filled with expensive new buildings, but some things/places/people need to change.  Imagine if Greenville still looked like its 1970s-'80s version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Skyliner said:

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2021/03/24/greenville-sc-considers-moratorium-fight-commercial-creep-city-council/6966499002/

It is sad when people apparently prefer to live in an almost third world state of existence even if opportunities to develop into a prosperous and wholesome first world community are abundantly available.  This applies to countless neighborhoods all over this nation.  I'm not saying they should all be filled with expensive new buildings, but some things/places/people need to change.  Imagine if Greenville still looked like its 1970s-'80s version.

The main issue I have with the moratorium is not the notion that we should "press pause" and allow the Land Management Ordinance time to catch up with the Comprehensive Plan; rather, it's the language that implies that the single-family home is the only land use that matters. Yes, we should ensure that the new Land Management Ordinance properly addresses the relationship between commercial and residential. However, if we don't allow anything to be built next to our "holy" single-family homes, we won't be left with much of a walkable city. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the mention of council entertaining a Moratorium is going to damage the Counties reputation amongst Developers. 

This quote stuck out:

Quote

“We have the largest number of gentrified units,” said council member Lillian Brock Flemming. “My district is all two-story something.”

She said developers were becoming millionaires on the backs of poor people.

https://www.thestate.com/news/upstate/article250140729.html

 

I guess they should envy California and all their moratorium's that enabled demand to outnumber supply and cause a affordable housing and homeless crisis, right? Most of the developers are not millionaires or billionaires, they are mom and pop persons. 

Edited by urbanlover568
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, urbanlover568 said:

Even the mention of council entertaining a Moratorium is going to damage the Counties reputation amongst Developers. 

This quote stuck out:

https://www.thestate.com/news/upstate/article250140729.html

 

I guess they should envy California and all their moratorium's that enabled demand to outnumber supply and cause a affordable housing and homeless crisis, right? Most of the developers are not millionaires or billionaires, they are mom and pop persons. 

California's supply issue is more to do with current landowners depressing supply to prop up real estate values. It doesn't have very much to do with gentrification and city master planning.

 

A brief 6 month moratorium for the city of Greenville to adhere to an approved master plan is far different than decades of suppressed development by landowners motivated by personal greed.

Edited by NewlyUpstate
Link to post
Share on other sites

I lived in California for 20 years before moving to Greenville and assure you UrbanLover569 is right . California's restrictions on development are insane, developers have to run a crazy gauntlet of studies they have to commission, regulations that are impossible to meet, lawsuits they have to face, exorbitant impact fees they have to pay, etc. It is practically impossible to build anything. Their housing situation is insane as a result,home  prices are in the stratosphere (last I checked the median home price in LA is about 4x Greenville) and my friends there report that the homeless are camped everywhere. The argument that the situation is caused by developers holding back units is absurd.  People are keeping housing they own vacant despite the fantastic money they could make in the current market, so that they can make an infinitesimal contribution o overall housing prices being higher from which they will not benefit?  Empirically, I have seen statistics showing that vacancies in California are rock bottom. This is a canard propagated by people who hate developers.

As for developers and their greed, people seem to forget that they satisfy this greed by building homes that people will make their lives in.  Gigantic consumer surplus will be enjoyed by those people. When you buy groceries the grocery store makes a profit, but have they not  done you an invaluable service by keeping you fed? Should we shut down the grocery stores to keep those rapacious chains from profiting? There is nothing wrong with profit as long as it is gained by serving a public need and not somehow earned unfairly.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, clemsonfan said:

I lived in California for 20 years before moving to Greenville and assure you UrbanLover569 is right . California's restrictions on development are insane, developers have to run a crazy gauntlet of studies they have to commission, regulations that are impossible to meet, lawsuits they have to face, exorbitant impact fees they have to pay, etc. It is practically impossible to build anything. Their housing situation is insane as a result,home  prices are in the stratosphere (last I checked the median home price in LA is about 4x Greenville) and my friends there report that the homeless are camped everywhere. The argument that the situation is caused by developers holding back units is absurd.  People are keeping housing they own vacant despite the fantastic money they could make in the current market, so that they can make an infinitesimal contribution o overall housing prices being higher from which they will not benefit?  Empirically, I have seen statistics showing that vacancies in California are rock bottom. This is a canard propagated by people who hate developers.

As for developers and their greed, people seem to forget that they satisfy this greed by building homes that people will make their lives in.  Gigantic consumer surplus will be enjoyed by those people. When you buy groceries the grocery store makes a profit, but have they not  done you an invaluable service by keeping you fed? Should we shut down the grocery stores to keep those rapacious chains from profiting? There is nothing wrong with profit as long as it is gained by serving a public need and not somehow earned unfairly.

I mean you might be right.. I still think a lot of it comes back to Proposition 13, which is a result of greedy home/land owners and has nothing to do with our situation here.   It by default depresses supply because it incentivizes staying in your house as long as possible, which reduces real estate churn.

Edited by NewlyUpstate
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.