Andrés Duany — who is a native of Cuba — observes that New Orleans should not be considered the most corrupt city in America, but the least corrupt city in the Caribbean. But, he warns, the city is in danger of losing its Caribbean soul since many of the people who are key to that soul are not moving back.
Many of New Orleans’ low-income neighborhoods were built decades ago, when building codes were not as strict as they are today. Rebuilding them to meet modern codes will cost far more than their former occupants can afford.
Many New Orleans neighborhoods remain unoccupied because their former residents cannot afford to rebuild to modern zoning codes. Flickr photo by lambchops.
Of course, plenty of wealthy people are moving back to New Orleans. “But the culture of this city does not flow from them,” says Duany. “They may provide the backbone of New Orleans but not its heart.”
Duany has a solution: Create an “an experimental ‘opt-out zone’: areas where one ‘contracts out’ of the current American system, which consists of the nanny state raising standards to the point where it is so costly and complicated to build that only the state can provide affordable housing.”
“For three centuries Americans built for themselves,” adds Duany. “They built well enough, so long as it was theirs. Individual responsibility could be trusted. We must return to this as an option.”
The drawback to this proposal is that, if homes in the opt-out zone do not meet minimum building codes, banks may not be willing to give their owners home equity loans, which are a major source of funds for small businesses. This poses the danger of a two-tier society: one of poor people who can afford minimal housing but have little upward mobility, and one of wealthy people who can afford housing in highly regulated areas.
Why just create a few opt-out zones? Why not simply deregulate the entire land market? Duany says that opting out “is not for everybody. There are plenty of people in New Orleans who follow the conventional American eight-hour workday.”
I like the idea of deregulation. But instead of two zones, perhaps we should have multiple zones:
- A totally deregulated area, with no building codes, zoning, or other rules;
- An area of the minimal building codes and other regulations needed to get banks to provide mortgages and home equity loans;
- An area with building codes and simple zoning setting maximum densities and some setbacks but no minimum densities and no other design standards;
- A fully regulated area with strict design standards.
Potential treatments should also be compared before a selection is free viagra samples made. Men and side effects viagra women are suffering from the problem. This is because studies have shown that generic viagra davidfraymusic.com bodily or psychological and emotion factors are at the cause of chronic prostatitis can be mainly divided into two reasons. That is buy cialis usa davidfraymusic.com the reason, the medical science has progressed a lot.
These zones would not be oriented around people’s incomes but around their desire for order and planning. Perhaps neighborhoods could vote on which zone they want to be in. Which zone would you want to live in?
But, the planners can’t allow people to be free anymore than the transit agency can risk a stike – people might notice that traffic congestion got BETTER rather than worse, without busses and toy trians blocing traffic.
Likewise, people might discover that the areas without the planning nazis, worked better and cost less. They can’t risk being exposed for the incompeternts that they really are.
Thanks
JK
I got approval the other night to waive certain regulations to allow the market to come in and provide uses we couldn’t get otherwise.
I wonder how that squares with some arguments here that all planners are the same?
It doesn’t, but we won’t discuss that, as that is dangerous to certain narrow ideological constructs. We don’t want to make folks uncomfortable in their rickety house, do we?
DS
My personal preference is to bury New Orleans and zone it for housebarges and floating homes.
However, I agree that by making requirements too stringent people are priced out of housing completely and are made homeless. Our ancestors for tens of thousands of years lived without indoor plumbing or electricity. Lack of money is the main reason for homelessness rather than lack of housing, however – compare the number of homeless people to the number of empty beds and bedrooms in the USA. I haven’t seen this comparison anywhere but I am sure there are far more empty beds than homeless people. If one looks at http://www.portland.craigslist.org and searches for ‘bed” in “free stuff” you will find about a dozen today.
I am designing a tsunami and hurricane resistant housebarge for coastal areas such as Lousiana, Florida, Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines, for example. So far the biggest challenges seem to be condensation, mold, and cost of anchors and waterproof door.
People have known for thousands of years that storms, floods, fires, earthquakes , rot, rust and insects can destroy houses. We have known for at least a hundred years how and where to build houses that will withstand those hazards. Putting houses on steep, unstable slopes or houses made of flammable materials in forests or houses that won’t float below sea level or in flood plains is stupid. Buyers, lenders, builders, insurers and government agencies that approve these houses should know better by now. They are all at fault.
> I wonder how that squares with some arguments here that all planners are the same?
When did the exception prove the rule? “Waive the regulation” is precisely the problem, because planning is the problem. If you don’t think what the near totality of planners do is good, why do you so vigorously defend them?
I’m not an exception. What you are being told and – more importantly – what you choose to believe is the exception.
That is: the majority, whose major investments are protected by regulation and the certainty of planning to maintain their investments, do not think like a small ideological minority. Thus the failure of private property rights legislation in WA, ID, CA and the impending repeal of M37 in OR – the theme music got some heads nodding, but few like the lyrics.
Lastly, I don’t comment to vigorously defend planners. I suggest, if you are interested in the accuracy of your statement, you may want to reread my comments to determine their actual theme. I make it easy to read my comments by placing the thesis near the beginning and starting each paragraph with the topic of that para.
DS
They are “protected” just like the sugar producers, the corn farmers, and other “protected” cartels. They are “protected” at huge cost to society.
You can’t take away the protection for the American Dream.
The protections protect, for many, the only or major significant investment they have. I won’t live to see the day when those protections go away.
The unintended consequences arising out of those protections – what Dash describes in the first para of his comment – arise due to human nature. I won’t live to see the day when human nature goes away.
DS
The Amercian Dream is to life, liberty and the pursuit… not to protection of what one has at the expense of other’s freedoms. That might be a Socialist’s Dream but it is clearly anti-American.
Without protectionist measures Americans would benefit from the freedom to buy and rent cheaper housing. If Americans believe it is in their self-interest to buy in areas without deed restrictions, zoning or other “protections”, they should have the right to make that purchase or investment without restriction–and to pocket the savings.
If Americans believe it is in their self-interest to buy in areas without deed restrictions, zoning or other “protectionsâ€Â, they should have the right to make that purchase or investment without restriction–and to pocket the savings.
The reason the measures to eliminate deed restrictions and zoning fell flat on their face in 2006 elections is because deed restrictions and zoning protect American’s investments. I’d be curious to follow how successful endeavors are to create a city in this mold of no zoning and deed restrictions so a foghorn can be sited next to a McMansion; sure, people can buy out those development rights, but I’ll be the first one in line to buy parcels so I can claim highest and best use to get the most profit out of my speculation…
As the planners who post here continually relate, zoning is used by American homeowners to protect their investments and is absolutely American; I strongly implore you to not tell a homeowner they are anti-American [and I suggest to you this is why the private property rights movement is stalled in this country – I successfully used this rhetoric against the movement in the last election].
DS