Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
OH, No
John Kramer of the Institute for Justice writes to say that IJ clients Carl and Joy Gamble will indeed be forced out of their home of 35 years to make way for a Crate & Barrel. They're expecting the moving van tomorrow. The town of Norwood, Ohio, handed their property over to developers after designating their area "blighted," which makes it subject to eminent domain seizure. Here are some photographs of said "blight." At least once they've moved they'll have somewhere to buy new furniture.
|2.2.05 @ 10:25AM|#
This is a terrible mistake the city will come to regret. They seem to have forgotten the PURPOSE of economic development.
|2.2.05 @ 10:27AM|#
This should insert more bitter taste into the mouths of the anti-corporate types. For some will see it as corporate bullying and not government stealing. Some will see it as both. Others won't give a damn.
sage|2.2.05 @ 10:28AM|#
Joe, they won't regret it. You know how much tax revenue they'll clean up from this? That's all they care about.
|2.2.05 @ 10:37AM|#
sage, it's a longterm fiscal loser. Cities succeed or fail by
being attractive places to be. Trading a quality neighborhood for a
souless office park will make Norwood a little bit less of a
quality city, and reduce property values across the board.
Maximizing what you get out of a single site, rather than
considering the impact of a proposal on the community as a whole,
is the opposite of responsible planning.
|2.2.05 @ 10:49AM|#
"Rookwood Exchange represents a major step for the region, in terms of encouraging stronger, self-sustaining communities by increasing density and mixing land uses," says RTKL Vice President Keith W. Campbell AIA, principal in charge of the project.
"This integrated, urban planning-based approach to commercial design is one of RTKL's greatest strengths, and we're excited to be working with such enthusiastic clients on so significant an undertaking," he said.
You gotta break a few eggs to make a well planned mixed use higher
density omelette.
sage|2.2.05 @ 10:49AM|#
"sage, it's a longterm fiscal loser. Cities succeed or fail by
being attractive places to be."
Really. Detroit is a relative shitbox, yet it's population over the
years does little more than increase. In
the end, lawmakers want revenue now. They don't care about the long
term. That will be someone else's problem.
|2.2.05 @ 10:52AM|#
"Crate and Barrel" is beginning to sound more like an private property acquisition strategy than inventory, at least if you reverse the terms.
|2.2.05 @ 10:57AM|#
Yeah, urban planning out in the 'burbs. Escape the crowded city.
Come out to spacious Norwood, when you can live right the fuck on
top of your neighbor and a stone's throw from your boss'
window.
That'll fly.
Detroit is a relative shitbox, yet it's population over the
years does little more than increase.
That's because it's citizens do
little more than fuck.
Ayn_Randian|2.2.05 @ 11:03AM|#
joe,
You just don't get it, do you? Even if the industrial park had been
a "winner" for the city, it would still have been wrong to take the
land. Period. Making property rights flexible in the name of
platitudes like "responsible planning" shows what an evil, ugly
statist you really are, and how little respect you have for a man's
home and property rights.
|2.2.05 @ 11:06AM|#
Rich in pride, tradition and heritage, the City of Norwood, Ohio has long thrived as a stable community nestled in the heart of the Greater Cincinnati Metropolitan area. Occupying a land area of just over three square miles, Norwood has been blessed with a strategic central location, excellent transportation accessibility, a strong and healthy economic base and a stable population of approximately 24,000 citizens.
Two-thirds of Greater Cincinnati's 1.4 million residents live
within 10 miles of Norwood.
sage|2.2.05 @ 11:09AM|#
rst, I was hoping your link would show something that proves your assertion. Like for example, the number of live births compared to other cities of comparable size. However, I don't disagree with you. In that city, what else is there really to do?
John M. Joy|2.2.05 @ 11:19AM|#
If this practice continues, I wonder how long it will be till
someone of the, ahem, nuttier side of the fruitcake who lost
property in this manner shows up after the fact either to firebomb
the "economic development" in question, or simply shoot up the
place and all of its occupants.
JMJ
|2.2.05 @ 11:19AM|#
Geographically small, landlocked suburbs do this all the time. The only way to "expand the property tax base" is to increase the number of "homes". Knocking down 5 homes to create 1 office building with a commercial bottom floor and 1 condo building with 48 units does exactly that. Since the condos are usually lower cost than one of the houses being torn down (say 25% cheaper), they can claim "affordable housing" exists and get 49 property taxpayers instead of 5. And they can tout the walkability of the neighborhood, etc. Throw in a little strip of parkland and it's a planner's orgasm - increased density, public green space, walkable...
|2.2.05 @ 11:22AM|#
I wish my neighborhood was blighted like that. I especially liked the neo-Tudor blight, and the landscaped Mediterranean villa blight.
John M. Joy|2.2.05 @ 11:34AM|#
The only way to "expand the property tax base" is to increase the number of "homes". Knocking down 5 homes to create 1 office building with a commercial bottom floor and 1 condo building with 48 units does exactly that.
It may increase the Grand List, but, unless the housing in question
is age-restricted, the population of kiddies living there (and,
more's the point, the cost of educating the li'l darlings) will
WELL more than chew up any revenue gains received. That, or it had
better be one helluva office building.
JMJ
|2.2.05 @ 11:38AM|#
In that city, what else is there really to do?
Get high.
The only way to "expand the property tax base" is to increase
the number of "homes".
I forget the exact wording of the constitution, but isn't public
use supposed to be for some tangible public owned
use; i.e. a railroad, airport etc?
I don't know this issue in depth.
How did we get to the point that increasing tax income is a public
use? Has this sort of thing ever gone to the SCOTUS?
I wish my neighborhood was blighted like that. I especially
liked the neo-Tudor blight, and the landscaped Mediterranean villa
blight.
To me it looks like quite a nice neighborhood.
|2.2.05 @ 11:44AM|#
I wish my neighborhood was blighted like that. I especially
liked the neo-Tudor blight, and the landscaped Mediterranean villa
blight.
Comment by: R C Dean at February 2, 2005 11:22 AM
Yes, I do really like the "landscaped Mediterranean villa blight",
also. If you want to see blight...oh brother, I can direct you to
many a U.S. city, but probably none of the houses in the
photos..
In that city, what else is there really to do?
Get high.
And gamble! :D
And litter.
|2.2.05 @ 11:52AM|#
Correct about the fiscal impacts, John M.
Randian, I'm actually a very handsome statist, and one who works to
help other people. Oh, wait, that last bit makes me evil, doesn't
it? Anyway, I actually agree that it would be wrong to take these
homes to build an industrial park, even if it wouldn't harm the
city's character. I'm just criticising it from another pov.
Twba, "You gotta break a few eggs to make a well planned mixed use
higher density omelette." Actually, no. The neighborhood is already
well planned, fairly dense and walkable. To make it more so, all
they would need to do is rezone for commercial or higher density
residential, and allow those owners who want to sell to developers
to do so. The "mixed use" new urbanist pitch appears to be so much
window dressing, latching onto a popular movement the way corporate
welfare recipients latch onto the language of markets, or anyone
with a new weapons system latches onto the language of
"transformation" and "RMA."
RC, I'm glad you like the look of the neighborhood, though your
appreciation poses a bit of a problem for your worldview. You know
those unpopular, oppressive, new urbanist hellholes you're so
certain no one with a free chose would move to? The streets you see
in those photos are the archetype of a New Urbanist
neighborhood.
rst, did you look at the pictures? They're already living on top of
their neighbors - and fighting for the right to continue doing so,
because they enjoy the quality of life that neigbhorhood
provides.
sage, a boom in low-income population, coupled with a reduction in
middle and high income residents, is not the hallmark of a
successful city.
|2.2.05 @ 11:53AM|#
"Ahh yes, urban & town planning at its finest."
If you're talking about the "Before" photos, I agree.
|2.2.05 @ 11:54AM|#
[I]If this practice continues, I wonder how long it will be till
someone of the, ahem, nuttier side of the fruitcake who lost
property in this manner shows up after the fact either to firebomb
the "economic development" in question, or simply shoot up the
place and all of its occupants.[/I}
JMJ
JMJ-The Roark approach, in honor of Rand's birthday, right? I
wouldn't vote to convict, anyway.
|2.2.05 @ 11:55AM|#
Is this one of those rare times as a Libertarian when I should be opposed to the arrival of new local businesses?
|2.2.05 @ 12:09PM|#
They're already living on top of their neighbors
Figuratively, perhaps. But the pictures all looked like
single-family homes to me.
|2.2.05 @ 12:18PM|#
Hey Joe,when do you find time to help others?Most of your time seems to be spent expounding your irritating opinions here and lord knows where else.
Gimme Back My Dog|2.2.05 @ 12:20PM|#
To recap:
City steals property from rightful owners. Hit and Run posts story.
joe comments that city planning is a good thing, it's just that
these particular planners are evil or don't understand "good"
planning or something.
Fitting for Groundhog's Day as we experience this thread over and
over....
sage|2.2.05 @ 12:30PM|#
"sage, a boom in low-income population, coupled with a reduction
in middle and high income residents, is not the hallmark of a
successful city."
Fair enough. What, then, is the 'hallmark of a successful city?' Is
it one where the low-income folks are "removed," making room for
the middle and high income residents? Or are you thinking of an
equal balance between the three? For that matter, what are the
standards of "success?" I would think that if you ask ten people
that question, you could easily get ten answers, none of them being
necessarily wrong.
|2.2.05 @ 12:36PM|#
The Supreme Court is to hear an eminent-domain-abuse case later
this month. I hope they make the right decision.
Those first two homes pictured were absolutely gorgeous.
|2.2.05 @ 12:38PM|#
"I would think that if you ask ten people that question, you
could easily get ten answers, none of them being necessarily
wrong.'
There are both subjective and objective conditions to consider. A
successful city offers the quality of live, infrastructure, and
services that make it attractive and accessible to a broad range of
people of and business. A successful city maintains and advances
its market share.
Dog, if there was no purpose in distinguishing between different
types of takings, why bother linking to pictures of the houses and
putting (wholly appropriate) scare quotes around "blighted?"
|2.2.05 @ 12:41PM|#
By the way, according to this story in today's New York Times,
Detroit's population has done nothing but DECREASE over the last
few decades.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/national/02detroit.html?8hpib
sage|2.2.05 @ 12:44PM|#
"By the way, according to this story in today's New York Times,
Detroit's population has done nothing but DECREASE over the last
few decades."
Now that's a quagmire. Do I believe the Times, or the Beaurau of
the Census? Sigh.
|2.2.05 @ 12:50PM|#
An excerpt from the story, which is about how Detroit is having
to slash its budgets for lack of tax revenues:
Having lost one million residents in a half century, Detroit is
expected to see its population drop by 50,000 more in the next five
years; 15,168 business have departed since 1972. New loft
developments credited with revitalizing downtown are mainly filled
with empty-nesters, not the building blocks of a healthy community;
white flight has become bright flight, with families and people
earning more than $50,000 a year leading the way out of town.
|2.2.05 @ 12:52PM|#
Those first two homes pictured were absolutely
gorgeous.
I respectfully disagree, but I do agree that these properties are
far from what I'd describe as "blighted."
|2.2.05 @ 12:55PM|#
one who works to help other people
More accurately in this context, joe works to make somebody else
help other people. He confuses his intent with the mechanism and
considers that intent an absolution for the the suffering
caused.
Now, if beautiful joe volunteers at the shelter or in a literacy
program, I will accept that he works to help other people, without
qualification. We don't know much about joe's own charity as he
spends so much time proclaiming his wise ability to give away
somebody else's money, while taking a nice cut for himself.
|2.2.05 @ 12:59PM|#
Sage-
Is the Census Beaurau different from the Census Bureau? I ask
because a quick Google search suggests that the Census Bureau seems
to think Detroit's population has been in decline for decades, too,
but maybe the Census Beaurau has access to data the Census Bureau
can't find.
|2.2.05 @ 12:59PM|#
"sage, a boom in low-income population, coupled with a reduction
in middle and high income residents, is not the hallmark of a
successful city."
joe, with all due respect, I will argue that reduction in total
residential population is the goal of fascist planners. Residents
consume tremendous resources (hospitals, schools, trash collection,
water, etc..), compared to businesses/commuters. I live in the DC
suburbs, and the property values are through the fucking roof
because of zoning. The fascists don't "allow" for much residential
development, therefor what is left is heavily in demand. It's
really, really fucking discouraging that two people very
comfortably in the professional, white collar ranks can barely
afford to rent a townhouse. It's simply impossible for lower income
people to live in this area, unless they are heavily
subsidized.
|2.2.05 @ 1:06PM|#
Well put, Mr. Nice Guy - zoning people out has been the hallmark
of suburban zoning for decades, and it has succeeded to the point
that there are serious housing shortages in many areas of the
country. Zoning too much land commercial is one way this occurs.
Forbidding any residential uses in these commercial zones is
another. Mandating extremely low densities, and expensive housing
types, in the residential zones a third.
Though I have to disagree with the statement that "reduction in
total residential population" is the goal of this zoning. I'd amend
that "reduction in the low and moderate income population" plays a
much larger role.
|2.2.05 @ 1:07PM|#
This Cincinnati resident -- who shopped at the Rookwood mall a dozen times a year for five years -- will never spend a penny there again, let alone anywhere else in Norwood.
|2.2.05 @ 1:09PM|#
I'll never shop at Crate & Barrell again so long as I
live.
Do a large portion of your shopping there now, do ya?
;)
|2.2.05 @ 1:13PM|#
So, assuming "blight" still means "blight," as well as meaning "blight" as OH has defined it, the whole city of Spokane, WA, ought to be seized and re-developed.
|2.2.05 @ 1:17PM|#
I was curious, GG -- should a property owner's rights be respected if he or she neglects their property to the detriment of their neighbors' property values (assuming property values are determined that way)?
|2.2.05 @ 1:17PM|#
I don't have anywhere else to mention this, but it poses a
different angle on the property takings debate. Last week's cover
story in the Philadelphia Weekly addressed local citizens
researching tax delinquency and initiating sheriff's sales on
nuisance properties (specifically drug houses).
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=8844
It's my initial reaction that this sort of activity passes the
libertarian sniff-tests, which surprises me since it represents a
possible private-property taking as well as a creative tool in
fighting against drugs.
But it also represents property owners failing to meet their
propery tax obligations, and either allowing or consenting to some
illegal use of the property. (Just by failing to meet the tax
obligation, I'm sure Georgists would have them moved off long ago!)
And it's not a "drug war" type of command and control policy; it
represents interested neighbors taking ownership of the problem (of
direct locally-imposed negative externalities as a result of drug
activity) and initiating a long-term solution. It strikes me as
more economic, more permanent, and less violent than calling for a
police raid.
And according to the anecdotes in the story, the process spawns
redevelopment within legitimately blighted or near-blighted
neighborhoods; or at the very least gets revenue flowing again on
the specific properties.
So I apologize because it's not eminent domain, but I didn't have
anywhere else to post it, and I can't come up with what I'd
consider a libertarian reason to oppose it.
|2.2.05 @ 1:19PM|#
I don't understand why these discussions keep breaking out here.
I _really_ don't understand why people keep arguing with joe about
this, as he's made it his life's work to coerce others. Like you're
going to convince him that he's in the wrong?
Are we Libertarians or what around here?
sage|2.2.05 @ 1:19PM|#
All right, Jennifer, thanks for the ration of crap. I didn't read the article because I did not want to register with the NYT. I trust you, though, that the article says what you say it does. The link I provided above shows decade by decade head counts since 1900. In all but two census years, there was a net gain in population. And as for my spelling...*shrug*...I try to do my bessed.
|2.2.05 @ 1:21PM|#
SPD -
We seem to have posted across one another. The story I mentioned in
my post addresses properties that both impact the neighbor's
experience as well as are delinquent on property taxes. Is that a
solid-enough basis for a property taking?
|2.2.05 @ 1:24PM|#
joe, Mr. NG,
I've only noticed this type of zoning in suburbs with developable
lots. In suburbs with no developable lots, in order to cover
increasing costs one of three things has to happen: 1) The existing
property values must rise high enough to make the revenue at the
existing tax rate cover the rise in costs, 2) The existing property
tax rates must rise in order to increase the revenue at the
exsiting property values high enough to cover the rise in costs, 3)
additional taxable properties must be created to increase the
revenues. Or some combination of these three.
There are several towns that are zoned 90% industrial/commercial
that are "successful", not from a resident's standpoint, but
certainly from the standpoint of how much money the mayor's making.
Rosemont, IL for example.
|2.2.05 @ 1:27PM|#
SPD,
I guess I'd have to know what you mean by neglect.
Of course in the owner literally abandons the property, the
adjacent homeowner could seize it and after a numbers (seven is
what springs to mind from my property course) own the property
himself.
|2.2.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Russ, the fiscal status of a community is important, but it
seems inadequate as a definition of whether or a not a city is
successful as a city.
A city is not a just a budget and a set of services. It is a place
where people live, work, and relate to.
|2.2.05 @ 1:34PM|#
Interesting, GG. I didn't know that.
Keith: Yes, I think we may have touched on similar topics.
What I wondered was: If Owner A chooses not to paint his house, fix
the broken windows, remove the rusted-out Camaro from his front
lawn and pick up large mounds of dog poop, can his neighbors do
anything about without infringing on his rights as a property
owner?
|2.2.05 @ 1:41PM|#
SPD,
Well, first he might live in a community that - as part of the
contract to buy a home in that community - would require one not to
allow such to happen. In that instance, he'd be in breach; though,
if they sat on their rights for a long time (as would seem possible
in this situation), the owner could just argue that latches applies
(you sat on your rights too long for the court to deal with your
shit - tough shit).
Second, some city ordinances do cover things like this. Every so
often one does hear about some guy with 10,000 goats on 2 acres or
8,000 rusted cars on six acres being forced to remove them,
etc.
|2.2.05 @ 1:55PM|#
A city is not a just a budget and a set of services. It is a
place where people live, work, and relate to.
To some people, that's true. To others that's not the case. Every
city has carpetbaggers; some of them are on the city payroll.
|2.2.05 @ 2:14PM|#
Out of town city employees, like out of town rental property owners, shouldn't be condemned wholesale. (I live in the town where I work, but I didn't always). And some resident-employee and resident-owners are bums.
|2.2.05 @ 2:29PM|#
keith,
It is essential to determine who is decided which property is a
nuisance. There are common-law remedies to demonstrated nuisance,
so the affected neighbors may not be taking so much as they are
collecting damages in the form of a property title.
Failure to pay property tax may be a breach of contract with the
municipality, if those taxes are seen as paying for fire protection
or other city-monopolized services. Again, then, it is possibly
more a compensation of title rather than a taking.
A Georgist urges the value of ground rent be used for public
purposes. The titling is not a necessary aspect. The value of the
buildings, and the rent they generate is left to the owners. In
this sense, the transfer of ground rent is not a tax, but the
payment of value to the only valid landholder, the public.
Withholding ground rent from the public would merit eviction, but
the Georgist doesn't have the desire to take the value of the
improvements. If the tenant could not make the land sufficiently
productive to pay the rent, he is free under Georgist theory to
move to less valuable land, all the way out to where market rent is
zero.
sage|2.2.05 @ 2:37PM|#
"A successful city offers the quality of live(sic),
infrastructure, and services that make it attractive and accessible
to a broad range of people of and business."
I'll buy that. How about one that allows people and businesses to
succeed on their own or fail?
"A successful city maintains and advances its market share."
Share of what/whom? Could you please expand on this one for me?
Phil|2.2.05 @ 2:40PM|#
But the pictures all looked like single-family homes to
me.
Some of them are top-bottom duplexes -- you'll find them in pretty
much all Ohio suburbs. They look a lot like the one I used to rent
in Lakewood.
Mr Nice Guy, did you read the article in yesterday's WaPo about
home prices in the metro area doubling since 2000? It seems to be
less a function of zoning (well, not completely, anyway) than a
constant influx of high-paid government workers and immigrants
driving the demand for housing up. From where I sit in my office in
Arlington, there's a mixed use condo going up a block away where
studio apartments are starting at $300K. There are more condos a
mile down Lee Hwy. starting in the $600s. And down in Shirlington,
there are 3-bedroom condos going up for $1.3 million.
It's absolutely ludicrous. My wife and I rented a 3-bedroom
single-family home in Cleveland with a finished attic and basement
for $635 a month in 1999. Here, we pay $1400 for an 1100 sq ft, 2br
apartment.
|2.2.05 @ 2:41PM|#
Dynamist,
Thanks for your comments. I think that in the situation I found,
the sheriff's sales are certainly compensating the city for
services (including fire protection as well as any bills
outstanding for water, sewer and natural gas services). The
concerned neigbors who start the process aren't necessarily the
ones who will get any direct profit for damages, but will benefit
by a change in the use of the property.
Thanks for the Georgist elaboration as well. Georgist theory is a
recent hobby of mine, and I'm still working on it.
|2.2.05 @ 2:43PM|#
Quod?: We argue with joe because it's fun. The more time he
spends here, the more likely he'll suffer from creeping
libertarianism.
The streets you see in those photos are the archetype of a New
Urbanist neighborhood. It is a place where people live, work, and
relate to.
The TND planner seeks to replicate the products of years of
individual decisions. Facade design and block platting is
frequently a substitute for the patience and trust required for
organic development. It is "Yesterday's neighborhoods now!",
attempting to force a preferred future. We might save some salary
expense if we trust the descendants of people who evolved Norwood
to do the same for wherever they choose to live. Tomorrows
neighborhoods tomorrow!
|2.2.05 @ 2:45PM|#
I imagine that to RC, discovering that a house he likes, or a
street he likes, contains rental housing and 10+ units/acre must be
akin to a frat guy reaching unawares up the skirt of...
I'll stop there.
Phil, without the zoning regime, the housing supply in greater DC
might stand a chance of meeting demand.
|2.2.05 @ 3:01PM|#
Dynamist, there were a lot of dreadful neighborhoods built in
the past as well. The successful design elements that TND seeks to
replicate represent the best of what came about. Left to their own
devices, builders in the market-driven economy of the industrial
era built godawful tenements, flood prone neighborhoods, and
noxious tanneries cheek by jowl with people's homes.
The argument "people left alone built the neighborhoods you like"
ignores the fact that they built miserables atrocities as well. It
also ignores the fact that they weren't as "left alone" as you
might imagine, but let's stick to one variable at a time.
|2.2.05 @ 3:44PM|#
Similarly, planners as confident as joe constructed a range of
atrocities. If joe can learn to avoid mistakes the past, isn't it
hubris to assume that individual actors are not equally
endowed?
The "left alone" idea will poison any debate until there are no
more states. To say "they weren't free neither" does not excuse or
justify continuing the oppression. Every action from the ancient
rise of kings was made under some scheme of coercion. I champion an
end to coercion, while joe wants to control it.
|2.2.05 @ 4:03PM|#
The problem is, Dynamist, the "mistakes" weren't always mistakes
for the people making them. They were rational, often effective,
attempts to maximize their profit.
A builder doesn't lose any money if his development turns into a
shithole ten years down the line.
"I champion an end to coercion, while joe wants to control it."
Well put. We have different priorities in our politics - you want
the developers and landowners to be free from regulation,
regardless of how the communities they build turn out. I want
people to live in quality communities, even if it requires
regulating development.
|2.2.05 @ 4:04PM|#
'The "left alone" idea will poison any debate until there are no
more states.'
Then perhaps you shouldn't have raised it, when you wrote: "The TND
planner seeks to replicate the products of years of individual
decisions."
Phil|2.2.05 @ 4:05PM|#
joe, maybe -- I don't know enough about the zoning regs here to say one way or the other. But there's no shortage of pretty dense housing here -- again, just from my office window, I can count seven high-rise apartment buildings, and not one of them has units under $1,200 monthly. Plus, there aren't a lot of undeveloped blocks here, and what there are aren't going for single family homes or McMansions, but condos and apartments.
|2.2.05 @ 4:11PM|#
Phil, decades of snob zoning have left the region with quite a bit of catching up to do.
|2.2.05 @ 4:27PM|#
I want people to live in quality communities, even if it
requires regulating development.
But who gets to define quality? Norwood seems to think a Crate and
Barrel store is of higher quality than a bunch of pretty little
homes. I have one friend who won't consider living in any place
less urban than Greenwich Village; another friend thinks one person
per square mile is too crowded for his tastes. I'm a cheapskate, so
I LOVE the fact that I live in an inexpensive apartment within
walking distance of several discount and overstock-outlet stores;
others would only like my neighborhood if the cheap stores were
replaced by precious little boutiques, and the cheap apartments
replaced by ultramodern luxury units.
Who gets to decide--the zoning board? The City Council? Or
maybe--here's a radical idea--the guys who actually own the stores,
houses and apartment buildings?
|2.2.05 @ 4:28PM|#
"Similarly, planners as confident as joe constructed a range of
atrocities."
Dynamist, I know the planners of whom you speak (LeCorbusier, for
example, or Robert Moses), and believe me, they were far more
confident than I. Learning from and shedding such hubris is a large
part of a modern urban planning education.
Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll accuse me of unmitigated arrogance
for daring to believe that my years of study and experience help me
to understand the likely outcomes of urban design choices better
than someone who's never made any effort to understand the outcomes
of design choices. I'm afraid I'll just have to live with your
disapproval.
|2.2.05 @ 4:36PM|#
Jennifer, the neighborhoods of cheap apartments should decide how to be the best cheap apartment neighborhoods they can be. Ditto with the highrise districts, the the SoHos, and the rural counties. Property owners, residents, businessowners, and the public officials they employ need to decide on what the goals and vision are, and how they should be pursued.
|2.2.05 @ 4:44PM|#
Jennifer, the neighborhoods of cheap apartments should
decide how to be the best cheap apartment neighborhoods they can
be.
Okay. So, as part of My Neighborhood, let me tell you this: me and
my neighbors would all be pretty irritated if the nearby job lots
and flea markets and cheap restaurants decided to convert
themselves to Tiffany's stores, Bentley dealerships, and other such
places where we couldn't possibly afford to shop. There are a LOT
more of us in the neighborhood than there are business owners. And,
considering that some folks in this neighborhood don't have their
own transportation, one could argue that the presence of these
stores fills an actual NEED for some residents, which luxury
boutiques would not.
So suppose the owners of the semiabandoned mall and the surrounding
businesses decided to upgrade in a major way. We, the folks who
live in the neighborhood, don't want them to. Furthermore, a lot of
us (thought not me, fortunately) truly NEED the services the cheap
stores provide.
There are more of us than there are of them. Should we poor folks
in the majority have the right to vote to keep out the jewelry
sellers and luxury-car dealers?
|2.2.05 @ 5:07PM|#
Plus, there aren't a lot of undeveloped blocks here, and
what there are aren't going for single family homes or McMansions,
but condos and apartments.
There are a number of undeveloped tracts in Suburban Charlotte that
are old family properties. I'm not sure if the family is waiting to
capture a higher $/acre, or if they just aren't going to
sell.
Wait until the suburbs start seizing that so that developers can
put up housing plans.
Old money has enough $$ to fight that stuff and fight it well.
|2.2.05 @ 5:17PM|#
You know, joe's ideas, although obviously not acceptable to a
purist libertarian, seem to be a vast improvement over a lot of
what gets done in the name of urban planning. joe would never
completely abdicate his job and let the free market decide all, but
it sounds to me like he'd interfere a lot less than most
planners.
Really, I'd see it as a HUGE step in the right direction if every
urban planner was like joe. To me, joe is kind of like a tax cut.
It sucks that the tax is still there, but I'll take the lower tax
over the higher tax any day.
|2.2.05 @ 5:40PM|#
thoreau,
The basic problem is that whatever "good intentions" joe and others
like him might have, when they are implemented they turn into
nightmares. I merely echo Hayek's thoughts on the matter of
course.
|2.2.05 @ 5:47PM|#
Gary, if joe thinks that a lot of zoning laws are too
restrictive, then he's OK in my book. I might want to go further
than he'd like to go (in fact, I'd like to go a lot further), but
in the context of the status quo (you know, reality), he's a
natural ally on many issues.
For instance, joe has opposed upper limits on density. As long as
he also opposes lower limits on density I would consider him an
ally.
He's also expressed sympathy for performance zoning, where instead
of specifying the allowed characteristics of a building you specify
the disallowed characteristics. e.g. no height requirement, but you
can't cast more than a certain amount of shadow on your neighbor's
property for more than a certain amount of time each day.
|2.2.05 @ 5:54PM|#
thoreau,
The problem of course is that centralized planning remains his
modus operandi. You seem to be confusing some similarity regarding
specific options with overall philosophy.
|2.2.05 @ 6:47PM|#
Who determines the aspects describing a "quality community"? Is
it the vibrant rabble of Jennifer's flea market or the refinement
of Tiffany? How does joe decide whether he should build projects
for rabble or refinement? And when he decides, where is the
compassion, or even respect, for those with wishes outside the
preferences in his plan?
Hubris is contained within the power to make "urban design
choices". Perhaps joe is a wise and benevolent dictator, and I
agree with thoreau that such is better than a cruel idiot, but joe
is still commanding behavior. That he may understand the likely
outcomes of choices would make him valuable to a private developer,
but he prefers to act in the public arena where he has the power to
prevent what he believes will be bad choices.
Forcing people away from mistakes is perhaps good parenting, but it
deprives mature adults of their essential humanity, to determine
their own future with freedom and responsibility. In theory, I see
little difference between joe and the Official Haircut Minister
commanding us all get a high-and-tight to better serve the public
interest. Certainly the Minister with advanced degrees in
Cosmetology and years of hygiene experience is better qualified to
know what should be on joe's head than joe himself is.
(Like I said, arguing with joe is fun...)
|2.2.05 @ 6:59PM|#
Gary, joe obviously does favor central planning.
But I don't care about his inner motivations. I care about the fact
that on a lot of urban issues he favors less central planning than
we currently have. Pragmatically, a city government run by joe
would be less intrusive than most city governments in the US
currently are, and that's a step in the right direction.
Don't get me wrong: I won't bestow the title "libertarian" on him
or teach him any of the secret handshakes. I won't give him a
secret decoder ring or let him join in our reindeer games. But I'll
still say that he's a breath of fresh air compared to a lot of what
goes in in local governments, and I wish more local officials were
more like him.
|2.2.05 @ 7:07PM|#
I'll give joe a decoder ring if he razes the hideous 70s-era
apartments in my neighborhood. Living in a traditional
neighborhood, I evidently like the idea of TNDs. It's just a
question of how we bring them about, and if we should be meddling
at all.
Now I'm off to listen to sub-joe-quality officials tell me what's
best for the vacant lot a few blocks over.
|2.2.05 @ 7:49PM|#
"Could this be prosecuted as organized crime?"
I thought libertarians were wont to think that government was, by
definition, organized crime. (As some of us used to say, "Fight
organized crime; smash the state.")
|2.2.05 @ 9:54PM|#
thoreau,
I think you miss the point. When joe changes his mind there is
nothing you can do about. Once you start making deals with the
devil, expect undesirable consequences.
|2.2.05 @ 10:14PM|#
Quod: We argue with joe because it's fun. The more time he
spends here, the more likely he'll suffer from creeping
libertarianism.
Not to mention that the more time he spends kibitzing on this
board, the less time he can spend regulating. :)
Kevin
|2.3.05 @ 8:17AM|#
"It's absolutely ludicrous. My wife and I rented a 3-bedroom
single-family home in Cleveland with a finished attic and basement
for $635 a month in 1999. Here, we pay $1400 for an 1100 sq ft, 2br
apartment."
Phil, man, you know my pain. My father supported a family of five
in a nice corner single-family home in this area. Now, 30 years
later, even though I am at the same employment level he was, I have
to rely on a partner to live in a house half the size. I was an
Econ major, but I'm still having a really hard time figuring it
out. In real dollars, my spending power is total shit compared to
my father.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245