The Washington Post reports that millennials living in walkable DC neighborhoods are growing up, getting married, having children, and (as the Antiplanner would expect) moving to the suburbs.
What wimps! They should be like these Toronto millennials who have had kids but are “learning to survive in 700 square feet.” Of course, unlike the Post, which actually quantifies (sort of) the number of millennials moving out of DC, Toronto Life relies strictly on anecdotes.
People eating this medicine must make sure that they don’t eat grapefruit or fatty foods, and do not drink a lot of high-calorie drinks, caused by excessive caloric intake to prevent a sharp increase cialis on line in body weight. It can be highly distressing and embarrassing for a man to super cialis professional discuss his sexual dysfunction openly. The erection is not reversed until the organ contracts to stop the inflow of cialis price canada blood and the blood vessels carrying blood away from the penis decrease in size and remove less blood from the penis. It’s important to realize that standard viagra no rx checks and maintenance is not just accomplished as something has damaged.
Of course, somewhere there is a planner saying, “the problem is affordability. If we just subsidized inner-city housing, more people would move/stay there.” To the Antiplanner, the definition of a socialist is someone who doesn’t understand that subsidizing something is not the same thing as making it affordable.
somewhere there is a planner saying, “the problem is affordability. If we just subsidized inner-city housing, more people would move/stay there.”
Emphasis on “a”. As in “one”.
DS
So much of the media is passing itself off as “news” or “journalism” when it really is nothing more than “entertainment” or some other distracting “shinyness”
I still like Margaret Thatcher’s description of socialism as working great until you run out of other people’s money.
In the old days (the 70’s) we would buy a home near downtown because it was less desirable and cheaper and a good place to start. Once kids came along, a big private yard in a low density area, so the kids could walk out the door and play, where they could be eaisly watched, was more desirable. I don’t think much has changed except people are starting families, later in life.
Parks were for team sports and ball games and an occasional bike ride.
In California, it’s the single-family home owners in cities who are getting huge subsidies through Prop 13 and restrictive zoning. They own land that would be extremely valuable if zoned for higher density.
In LA, I’d gladly kill all developer subsidies and inclusionary zoning (which doesn’t work anyway) in exchange for upzoning everything that’s R1 to R3.
Sorry Dan, but “Planners” are vile horrible people who impose their low “standards” upon the population and expect us to all live down to their level. If your planning mantra is so great, move here!
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/06/east_portland_growth_slow_it_d.html#incart_river
In California, it’s the single-family home owners in cities who are getting huge subsidies through Prop 13 and restrictive zoning. They own land that would be extremely valuable if zoned for higher density.
So you’re arguing that those homeowners are being subsidized because their land is now worth….less? Huh?
So you’re arguing that those homeowners are being subsidized because their land is now worth….less? Huh?
Don’t expect anything coming from a planner or planning advocate to make sense.
So you’re arguing that those homeowners are being subsidized because their land is now worth….less? Huh?
They are not paying taxes on the current value of their land. And not allowing for zoning changes keeps the undesirables away.
DS
They are not paying taxes on the current value of their land. And not allowing for zoning changes keeps the undesirables away.
That may be the effect of Prop 13. If so, who is doing the subsidizing? Commercial property owners?
This is also separate from the effect of restrictive zoning, which would in principle reduce the value of their property, not increase it. That is what I was responding to with the ‘subsidy’ comment.
If so, who is doing the subsidizing? Commercial property owners?
Everybody in CA who pays taxes. They have to make up the lost revenue. One strategy to raise revenue post-Prop 13 was to allow commercial development all over the place, which is the main reason you see commercial along the highway all the way up to the Gold Country along I-80 – see Fairfield and Vacaville (and Davis and Roseville and Lincoln) for examples of this phenomenon.
Nevertheless, the argument restrictive zoning… would in principle reduce the value of their property, not increase it. is compelling until we look at the newspaper. San Francisco’s (and Seattle’s) unwillingness to densify is making housing prices skyrocket and Google buses are the focal point.
IMHO it is not all the property owner’s fault – after all, they want their SFD in San Francisco or Seattle, and it will stay that way until they die and if the kids don’t want it, it will be sold and eventually will be a mid-rise condo or apartment. Surely this tension has occurred in every city on the planet.
DS