Opposing Urban growth and development

[Χά�ων]

This is playing out now near where I live. Land has sat vaccant or underused for decades. Due to strong Grassroots efforts by residence the area is now safe and in demand and developers are looking at the vaccant and underused areas. There are plans to build apartments/safe gas stations/retail space/insert whatever. And there is now a major uproar and backlash from residents. The objections are almost laughable. An apartment complex plans include parking for residents and they are mad because they want it to be compeltly walkable. Except there is one grocery store in walking distance and it is not affordable for most people. A solution is better public transportation. Seems to fitnwith walkable urban areas, right? There is an attempt to pass a tax increase that will directly benefit public transportation in the area and you would think the world is going to end.

 

I have gathered they want the following:

 

Residents who never drive or need a car

Not to pay taxes for any reason, including public transportation that would allow residents to not have a car.

No chain busineses near by that will provide services like a pharmacy, grocery stores, etc that are vital to those who do not have a car.

 

I do not get why people fight progress to the point of insanity. Isn't a walgreens better than a vacant lot? A Trader Joe's better than a building that is crumbling? Publif transportation better than more cars?

[Guest]

Have you seen Kimmy Shmidt? There's a lady in it that doesn't want her neighborhood to get cleaned up :)

 

Fwiw, the CVS of today is just another empty building in thirty, fifty, whatever years, so it's not unilaterally better than an empty lot, no.

 

I'm always ALWAYS in favor of better public transportation everywhere.

[Murphy101]

What they really mean is they don't want lower incomes to bring their housing value down.

 

Because of course only low incomes live in apts or use public transit. That's what those complaints mean in many areas I'm aware of and if you speak more privately to those people making hose claims, they will tell you that's exactly what they think.

 

I'm against urban expansion unless they have tried to reduce and reuse the Urbana areas they already have, but sometimes it is necessary. I'm pro better public transit systems in general regardless.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

Wrt to vacant lot vs business/housing. There is a difference between vacant and not developed. We need greenery. And it raises the quality of life and air when more than the ocassional decorative Rose bush is to be found even in urban areas. A community garden or wooded area for example is not vacant but of community good.

 

I have no issue with beautification efforts of existing developments as long as it doesn't price everyone already there or nearby out of their own communities.

[nixpix5]

Well....I used to be pro development until they built apartments in our area. We went from a safe neighborhood that we all took for granted (no car break ins, still could have non locking mailboxes and so forth) to feeling like we are going to have to move. Our car has been broken into 5 times, we had to put in locking mailboxes and they still broke in. Our packages have been stolen multiple times off of our porch. Our neighbor's house was broken into...I could go on and on. The past 3 years has been hell for all of us. We have had neighbors sell their houses and move out. I was the one who told them they were paranoid and it was a good thing. Sigh...

[Guest]

What they are saying is they can't afford it. The developer isn't going to expand the waterand sewer, provide public transportation, bike lanes, and funding for the school district and police dept/court expansion. All that cost falls on.the locals, who are taxpayers and don't have subsidized medical, college tuition etc. They have done the math.

 

We did have a large religious group successfully develop land for dense housing and.their business. Their community paid for every thing, and their students pay tuition if using public school instead of their private school. The one objection the locals have is that their property is exempt, so the tax money the former farm generated isn't available. The counter is that the farm wasn't too profitable, and the owner of course had an ag exemption. The resolution is that the group contributed the labor and land to develop a park for all. Its beautiful. Our community is better off.

 

The state on the other hand, put group homes in single family residential areas. The traffic from all the staff and services is so bad that neighborhood children can't safely walk up to their bus stop and have to be driven. They cannot ride their bikes either. The state didnt provide these children an alternative play space, or build the road up so a school bus could safely pick up and discharge children. The working families moved out..the police and medical emergency activity doesn't allow for a good nights sleep. Net negative and shows in the home values on the street.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah some people want to live in an area with convenience, that is the middle of nowhere, and not pay taxes. 

 

I don't get it.  I mean sure that sounds great, but it's just not possible. 

 

 

[Kim in Appalachia]

Have you seen Kimmy Shmidt? There's a lady in it that doesn't want her neighborhood to get cleaned up :)

 

Fwiw, the CVS of today is just another empty building in thirty, fifty, whatever years, so it's not unilaterally better than an empty lot, no.

 

I'm always ALWAYS in favor of better public transportation everywhere.

 

 

I love that show, and the way they have been able to poke fun at these issues has been the best.  My dh and I love to joke about FioS :D

 

We are having similar issues in this town.  Things are improving and taxes are increasing, so people are really angry.  Somehow, vacant drug invested lots are better than new stores or restaurants.  I don't get it. 

 

An abandoned diner was bought and being renovated and you would think someone was building a nuclear facility in the center of town.  Unreal. We lived, for a long time, in a dead town, with no businesses except schools and hospital.  Growth is better than dying.

 

But really, whenever I hear someone complain about the changes going on, I hear it in Carol Kane's voice.  :lol:

[Χά�ων]

Wrt to vacant lot vs business/housing. There is a difference between vacant and not developed. We need greenery. And it raises the quality of life and air when more than the ocassional decorative Rose bush is to be found even in urban areas. A community garden or wooded area for example is not vacant but of community good.

 

I have no issue with beautification efforts of existing developments as long as it doesn't price everyone already there or nearby out of their own communities.

These vacant lots fit the descriptor, "creepy".

[Zinnia]

We have had a lot of development near me in the last couple of years.  A very run down shopping center (think used mattress stores, sketchy beauty supply stores, another sketchy store that sold WIC food and diapers --why???? why wouldn't you go to Kroger??, check cashing places) was replaced with new construction Walmart and chain stores.  I mean, yes, it's Walmart, but it also isn't check cashing, so...

 

The Walmart spurred other development, and they tore down some car dealerships that had sat empty and neglected since the recession of 2008.  We now have Sprouts, a Whole Foods, apartments, several local stores (massage therapy, cookies, a couple of restaurants), and in the next phase, Chick fil A, and Aldi.  

 

So for my area, WM was the initial one that was willing to invest, and it has snowballed.  It was fought very, very hard, though, in favor of keeping the check cashing stores and neglected empty dealerships.  

[Janeway]

Some people move to a town to get a small town. And then the town grows, for whatever reason, often because they are close to a large city, and the small town becomes a big one. Big ones are completely different.

 

We have the same thing going on in our town. I do not have a stance on this issue. I like having stores and such. When we moved here, there was no Walmart or Target. Now we have both. The population has doubled. There is something nice about living in a town where people know each other and we have town events and such. 

 

Both the growth people and the slow-grow people oppose apartments though. Apartments are considered high density. On average, they have higher crime rates and bring in less in tax dollars per person that needs to be supported. Anything that rents comes with a higher crime rate actually, and a different sort of population. I used to rent, so I do not have a problem with renters or anything. Nor is anyone perfect just because they buy. BUT, renters by nature tend to be temporary. They do not have roots down or a stake in the area so much as they own nothing and could walk away at any moment. 

 

I can definitely see the point of not wanting growth of any sort. If you bought in to a small town community, you probably wanted to live in a small town. I often do not get people buying in to a small town and then trying to change it in to a big city. 

[EmilyGF]

I think people are fearful about getting priced out where they live.

 

There are also people who don't want things to change.

 

Many would rather have the known negatives than a potential set of unknown negatives.

 

For us, we live in a neighborhood that could stand more jobs and positive developments. We moved here because of my husband's job, but there are many people who live here and commute because they like the more relaxed, suburban feeling. They don't want more jobs because it would bring people like me who want the place to be less backwater, so they oppose anything that would bring jobs or high quality housing. I agree, it would/will cause more traffic, but I'd rather have the goods, services, and people it would bring. Others don't. Also, we own and aren't fearful about being priced out. Many others rent and would be priced out.

 

Emily

(trying to understand my neighbors who oppose things that seem like obvious goods to me)

[Carrie12345]

Not knowing the details of the area, I'll just say that things like white flight and gentrification are serious business that hit a lot of people very hard.

[shawthorne44]

My sympathy is with the residents.  

 

Due to strong Grassroots efforts by residence the area is now safe and in demand and ...

 

 

 

They did the work now other people are wanting to change things.  

 

Although, if a lot was zoned for commercial and someone wants to buy the land to put something commercial, then that should be fine.  But, the residents should be able to stop zoning changes.  

[kbutton]

I am not sure why walkable and public transportation would not both be possible in the same area. Our area is not walkable, and it drives me nuts. We are theoretically close enough to stores to walk to them, but they are on the other side of a highway, there are no sidewalks, and there is no greenscaping, so it would be a very hot walk on a summer day. I grew up in a truly walkable small town (I had relatives and friends that had no vehicles, ever), and public transportation is growing slowly there--you can take buses to important places in town, to a neighboring town (largely university students) and from town to the mall in the city (an hour away). The town is still completely walkable--kids who live in town still walk to school, etc. But it's not a place that was ever unsafe or rehabbed, etc. It's just always been a small town in a rural area. It's also the county seat, so there is a lot of need to keep things accessible for people built into the scenario.

 

Around where I currently live, it's hard to find areas that are not being developed, but it often ends up looking like "we want one of those stores because it's too much trouble to go that same store (literally same chain!!!) a mile away." So we get extra traffic lights, empty stores where the existing ones were because, "Oh, new and shiny," bits and pieces of development with no identity, etc. Sometimes, the new store is in a place with public transportation, but mostly not.

 

Maybe if residents can see what will happen without some planned effort, they will be more responsive. Our current locale has a newly formed planning something-or-other to tackle these issues. As long as they don't tell me that we're going to be so upscaled that I can't have a clothesline, etc., I think people will respond positively. Our neighborhood is one of the few in the entire county that doesn't have a slew of HOA rules, and is a blend of country living without being "out." It also has moderately-sized houses, and that's also unusual unless you live "out." If they do not develop carefully, it will be awful. Either the neighboring tax-hungry small city will try to annex, or it will become a cookie cutter suburbia with nanny rules. (Which is fine if that is what you like, lol! It's not my cup of tea.) Thankfully, residents are being asked for input and I saw (in small writing somewhere among the slew of slides) that they don't intend to impose HOA-type restrictions on existing neighborhoods without one. Of course, I can't print any of the slides to bring it up again later for proof, lol, so it might be a vast conspiracy. There are plenty of HOA neighborhoods within the new plan to choose from, lol! They are trying to build in walkability and a town center atmosphere. I don't know if they will hook up to public transportation--it's on the county line, and most transit here is county-based. I can see them having a bus line for medical care though--that would be super easy, and I think there is currently a mini version of this available.

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I think there can be a lot of issues with these things under the surface. 

 

I would say, first of all, that no, not all development is good development, not all is better than nothing, and not all is progress.  So - there is that.  And there can be very reasonable fears that starting down the road of poor development choices will be hard to turn around from.

 

The second thing is, people in vulnerable communities can often be afraid that they will be taken advantage of, even when the development is good.  Their experiences can lead them to be less discerning than they might be about what is going on, and they can tend to fear change will be bad change.

 

The other thing is, even objective improvements in a neighbourhood can impact the vulnerable residents negatively at times, if it improves things overall but means that the neighbourhood becomes untenable for them.

 

And I think, finally, people who live in a place tend to have a sense of commitment and ownership of it.  So they react negatively when people from outside start making decisions that will affect their lives.  That cuts across incomes and social class.

[Χά�ων]

Interesting perspectives.

 

The progress in one situation is a very popular business that has a parking lot designed to handle half the traffic it gets. It is dangerous to get in and out of. The owners bought a vacant building to expand and make it safer. The world might end if you listen to the vocal residents. The residents who agree are insulted, slammed, and even excluded from the meetings. It has been eye opening to see how only one side is supported in the conversation.

 

The other I mentioned was half million dollar units with parking (original complaint was about lack of parking).

 

The public transportation complaint is just weird. The tax increase is not small but is not so bad as to off set the advantages. We are planning to go down to one car immediately and we are not the only ones we know planning to do just that. It will connect everything we need to access. It will help house values and people who are lower income all on one swoop. It is an awesome plan!

[Χά�ων]

My sympathy is with the residents.

 

 

 

They did the work now other people are wanting to change things.

 

Although, if a lot was zoned for commercial and someone wants to buy the land to put something commercial, then that should be fine. But, the residents should be able to stop zoning changes.

I agree about changing zoning regulations, and our neighborhood has changed zoning regulations with great sucess and well as having a strong influence on neighboring areas. Almost too strong, they have halted all developement in a neighboring district.

 

Back ti the areas I am speaking of. The areas in question are zoned mixed use for commercial and residential, no one has changed any zoning regulations.

 

I have seen the plans and they are really nice and have taken into consideration the history and character and are respectful of blending in with the architecture of that period. They have also considered modern usage and made sure it could handle it. It is really a well thought out design.

 

I can see why some people would object to rents increasing, but this is one if the cheapest areas to live in the country. We looked at moving and places like this in, say Austin, TX, are a million dollars more to buy. They want all the convinces without the cost. That is not how it works.

[Bluegoat]

Well, you know, many people don't have much room for rent increase, or property taxes.

 

Increasingly, as urban areas gentrify, the poor are being driven into suburbs - where they have even less access to things like transportation.

 

An area i used to live has seem some great development, and much of the low-income housing has stayed.

 

And yet, at the same time, there are now few businesses for the poorer residents - business rents are too high for the shops and services they frequent.  As many more, richer people have come into the community, the voices of the original inhabitants are a smaller group. It worries them.

 

You know though - I think one of the biggest problems, in the end, is that developers are working to make money, for themselves.  Even if they are thoughtful, they are private people making decisions that affect everyone.  It sets up a dynamic that is never going to be really equal.

[eternalsummer]

Well, you know, many people don't have much room for rent increase, or property taxes.

 

Increasingly, as urban areas gentrify, the poor are being driven into suburbs - where they have even less access to things like transportation.

 

An area i used to live has seem some great development, and much of the low-income housing has stayed.

 

And yet, at the same time, there are now few businesses for the poorer residents - business rents are too high for the shops and services they frequent.  As many more, richer people have come into the community, the voices of the original inhabitants are a smaller group. It worries them.

 

You know though - I think one of the biggest problems, in the end, is that developers are working to make money, for themselves.  Even if they are thoughtful, they are private people making decisions that affect everyone.  It sets up a dynamic that is never going to be really equal.

 

 

Agreed.  A check cashing business, while not exactly highbrow (and may often be predatory) is sometimes more relevant to poor people than Chic-Fil-A.  A store that only sells WIC things and diapers would have actually been a pretty cool idea when I was on WIC - I hated waiting in line at the normal grocery store while they figured out my checks and the manager came to verify and etc., because I felt like I was making the person behind me wait.

[Bluegoat]

Agreed.  A check cashing business, while not exactly highbrow (and may often be predatory) is sometimes more relevant to poor people than Chic-Fil-A.  A store that only sells WIC things and diapers would have actually been a pretty cool idea when I was on WIC - I hated waiting in line at the normal grocery store while they figured out my checks and the manager came to verify and etc., because I felt like I was making the person behind me wait.

 

Laundromats are another.

 

Restaurants that are inexpensive.

 

Stores with used clothes, not trendy vintage ones.

[EmilyGF]

These are sketchy thoughts I'm putting down - I may reconsider as we discuss!

 

I'm going to come from this as one of the gentrifiers - someone living in an area that somewhat sketches me out (there was a freakin' fight that separated me from my kids when I went grocery shopping a few weeks ago) because my husband is opposed to commuting. Yet, I have many friends who are feeling the weight of higher prices and I wish they weren't being priced out OTOH, the buildings they lived in were problematic (broken radiators, lead, etc) and once the owners put $$$ into them to fix them up, they could no longer afford them.

Well, you know, many people don't have much room for rent increase, or property taxes.

 

Increasingly, as urban areas gentrify, the poor are being driven into suburbs - where they have even less access to things like transportation.

 

An area i used to live has seem some great development, and much of the low-income housing has stayed.

 

And yet, at the same time, there are now few businesses for the poorer residents - business rents are too high for the shops and services they frequent.  As many more, richer people have come into the community, the voices of the original inhabitants are a smaller group. It worries them.

 

You know though - I think one of the biggest problems, in the end, is that developers are working to make money, for themselves.  Even if they are thoughtful, they are private people making decisions that affect everyone.  It sets up a dynamic that is never going to be really equal.

Yes, and yet, as our area gentrifies, and I know this isn't necessarily true all the time, higher density buildings are going up. A gas station was replaced with a 13-15 floor "high rise" of condos. A strip mall literally across the street from a mass transit stop was replaced with 20 floors of condos. A parking lot by mass transit is being replaced with 40 floors of condos. This is helping a somewhat neglected mass transit line be used. This is what I consider good development in some ways - low density users near mass transit being replaced by high density. Yet, the less $$$ one has the more you NEED good public transit. And the more wealthy people value public transit, the less someone with a lower income can afford to live near it.

The ma and pop stores are feeling it, I think, as rents go up and competitors come in. National chains who wouldn't have considered us before are moving in, which is good (I can now buy underwear from a place I feel safe without driving 20 minutes!) and bad (national chain competing with a really wonderful ma and pop store than carries excellent and inexpensive produce). Fancier restaurants moving in and fewer one-location restaurants.

 

We were burglarized last year. I've seen a group of people ON THEIR WAY to commit murder. But, as an owner, most anything that drives out crime and provides good density is welcome to me. Even gentrification.

 

Emily

 

 

[Zinnia]

For us, the shopping followed the housing gentrification.

 

We moved to our neighborhood in 2010. The less desirable, unincorporated countying side of a trendy area. The city limits (with city taxes but better schools) has an average housing cost of $500,000+. My neighborhood (where we rent, and I am priced out of and am looking at other options) sells for an average $350,000.

 

That's why I was surprised at the vehemence against Walmart instead of check cashing. The check places were not getting neighborhood traffic--it was a weird dynamic where people were coming from other neighborhoods to the "good" BigLots.

 

The neighborhood hate of the development was mostly because it was Walmart and second, because they didn't want to add to traffic. We had been spoiled by years of low use of the shopping center and empty dealerships.

[Farrar]

I'm in an inner city neighborhood. Mine is very walkable - both to local retail (cute independent hardware stores, restaurants, bars, bookstores, etc.) and to box box retail (Target, Best Buy, major grocery chains, fast food chains like Pollo Campero and Panera) as well as to subway and buses. We came when there was a lot less walkable retail (and almost none of it was chains and all of it was farther out than it is now) and the whole neighborhood was pretty sketchy. Like, someone shot in front of our house sketchy and our neighbor was literally running a crackhouse. It still has urban issues for sure, but I'd say it's pretty well arrived in terms of gentrification. It's bougie. Like, Capitol Hill staffer house bougie.

 

So... I've spent years watching the fights about development and let me tell you - nothing surprises me now. I've seen it all on the listserv and it gets crazy. And as someone who is an old-timer at this point, the longer I've lived here, the more I understand the anti-development people. I'm still basically pro-development, but, for example, they're about to turn a huge vacant property nearby into residential something with hundreds of units and I groaned. My gut would so much rather it stay empty. My rational mind says, oh good, I will voice my support for the plan that includes the most low cost senior housing and isn't that great. But my gut is screaming, more overpriced condos, more people, more construction, they're going to close my only way into my one way street to do this, the affordable units probably aren't all they're cracked up to be, etc. etc. And I get people's frustrations - like, the development benefits ME - I can afford to shop and I own so it increases my property value but not so much that we can't afford our taxes. But it doesn't benefit all the people who got evicted from the building behind me last year or the homeless guys at the park. And oftentimes the city talks big about turning that development money around to help people... but it's hard to see it in action sometimes.

 

There's another neighborhood south of here where the gentrification went way, way faster than here - like 0 to 60 fast. There's a really swanked out nice gay club with a ton of different rooms and sleek spaces that's incredibly popular and sometimes rented for other events and... they just got gentrified out of their space. Like, the swanky gay club. Oy. So, I think there's a sense that when development gets rolling, sometimes it simply does not stop. And people fear that.

 

I have to admit... just on the face of it, if a business bought a lot for a parking lot in this neighborhood, I'd also it rather stay a vacant lot. Parking lots are ugly. Put that stuff underground or in the suburbs.

[Sdel]

Well, I admit, I am very sad these days. My town has plans to develop a major highway right through the middle of my family's property in the next 30 years. Property that was surveyed in the 1800s and today every inch of it remains among the descendants. Over 200 years of family investment and it will be ruined against our will.

 

I am not a fan of growth just for growth's sake. It breeds too many problems.

 

Stefanie

[Χά�ων]

Yes, fixing up run down apartments has become a must after decades of minimal maintence. And that comes with a price that is increased rent. It cannot be helped. The infastructure is collapsing and many places are just unhealthy to live.

 

The schools here still suck donkey balls. The children of the lower income families who are in the suburbs for cheaper rent are benefiting from a far superior education and the oppertunity to graduate high school with an associates degree. But yes, it comes at a cost of longer commutes due to less awesome public transit. Though that is changing as well now that the wealthier residents who do not want to risk the crappy schools for their children are starting to demand better public transportation.

 

Where I am, neglecting to build and update the things I am talking about will result in a dangerous to access parking lot getting worse, and an abandon building becoming more run down.

 

The interesting thing about the retail areas is that when the buildings went for sale, no one cared about investing to keep rent low, the smart business owners bought their space when they hd a chance. It was not all about not having enough money, there are those who can afford it. Possibly better than money is the influence, again, they did not care until it was over then they decided to fight the new owners over every little thing.

[eternalsummer]

Yes, fixing up run down apartments has become a must after decades of minimal maintence. And that comes with a price that is increased rent. It cannot be helped. The infastructure is collapsing and many places are just unhealthy to live.

 

 

 

I think this is just such a conundrum - the people who live there now, in the unhealthy run-down places, are not all going to be able to afford the higher rents for the fixed up apartments. They will just have to move to another unhealthy run-down place, or become homeless.  So it doesn't really solve the problem for *them*.

[Χά�ων]

I think this is just such a conundrum - the people who live there now, in the unhealthy run-down places, are not all going to be able to afford the higher rents for the fixed up apartments. They will just have to move to another unhealthy run-down place, or become homeless. So it doesn't really solve the problem for *them*.

I agree it does not help them. I am against buildings that are poisoning children due to exposed lead paint, roach infestations, out dated heating and cooling equipment and so on. I do not know what the solution is that benefits everyone. It is systemic. And, sadly, it is race based.

 

I want to see unhealthy and unsafe buildings made safe, because no parent should have to worry that the place they live could make their child sick. I think slumlords should be heavily fined, or even charged with criminal offense if someone is injured due to their neglect. But this is America, many slumlords are white and live in different cites and the residents are black. I have seen a slumlord buy up a lot of houses on what was a nice block and rent out the houses and do no maintence and eventually the block is little more than a collection of abandoned houses. The black residents suffer, the white slumlord does not care and knows the city has too many other problems to come after them.

[Carrie12345]

I live in what was a very rural area for a long time. There was a huge amount of growth in the 80s and 90s, and the area seemed to absorb it pretty well, considering the population *doubled* in 20 years.  It was always viewed as having a lower COL and "better" lifestyle for families than the suburban rat race.  The local economy became less about tourism and instead revolved around building.

 

When the banks went nuts and started to give everyone as much money as they wanted, there was another population spike.  Anyone could own a home here, so why would they choose to pay just as much in rent for questionable housing in a sketchy area? The population went up again by about 70%. More (state of the art) schools were built, more stores were built, more houses were built.  Can you even imagine living in a crummy city apartment while your 3,500sf colonial was being built to your specs in a gated community on over an acre of land?!?  Or even just getting ready to close on a modest ranch, where your small children could safely play outside.

 

But we've crashed since then.  Some people couldn't manage the mortgages they were given.  Some people couldn't find jobs. Some people couldn't sustain the "super commute" to lucrative jobs.  Some people weren't prepared for the transportation needs.  Some people couldn't absorb the tax increases. Some people just didn't take to the rural(ish, now) lifestyle.

 

I'm surrounded by houses in foreclosure.  My own house is now worthless.  Our schools have been closing because they were built for the projected continued growth, but now we're in a population decline.  Most of the home building companies and associated tradespeople have closed up shop.

 

There is unmistakable tension in the area.  You're either a native, someone who's been here a long time, or a transplant.  If you're white and have an accent, you can "pass" as a long-time local, as long as you're not too loud and obnoxious.  If you're black or visibly Latino, forget it. Some people (including earlier transplants) who are angry about our economy, drug and crime problems, and any other negative aspect will always consider you a transplant and the cause of these issues. You're barely one step above the city tourists who come here to party.  I can't read internet comments from local groups/publications because they're deeply disturbing and shake my faith in humanity.

 

I actually LOVE where I live, and I don't ever want to leave the area.  But I've seen the pros and cons of growth.  Even when they "balance" in the big picture, the cons hurt real people.  And I absolutely do not know what the answer is.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I'm in an inner city neighborhood. Mine is very walkable - both to local retail (cute independent hardware stores, restaurants, bars, bookstores, etc.) and to box box retail (Target, Best Buy, major grocery chains, fast food chains like Pollo Campero and Panera) as well as to subway and buses. We came when there was a lot less walkable retail (and almost none of it was chains and all of it was farther out than it is now) and the whole neighborhood was pretty sketchy. Like, someone shot in front of our house sketchy and our neighbor was literally running a crackhouse. It still has urban issues for sure, but I'd say it's pretty well arrived in terms of gentrification. It's bougie. Like, Capitol Hill staffer house bougie.

 

So... I've spent years watching the fights about development and let me tell you - nothing surprises me now. I've seen it all on the listserv and it gets crazy. And as someone who is an old-timer at this point, the longer I've lived here, the more I understand the anti-development people. I'm still basically pro-development, but, for example, they're about to turn a huge vacant property nearby into residential something with hundreds of units and I groaned. My gut would so much rather it stay empty. My rational mind says, oh good, I will voice my support for the plan that includes the most low cost senior housing and isn't that great. But my gut is screaming, more overpriced condos, more people, more construction, they're going to close my only way into my one way street to do this, the affordable units probably aren't all they're cracked up to be, etc. etc. And I get people's frustrations - like, the development benefits ME - I can afford to shop and I own so it increases my property value but not so much that we can't afford our taxes. But it doesn't benefit all the people who got evicted from the building behind me last year or the homeless guys at the park. And oftentimes the city talks big about turning that development money around to help people... but it's hard to see it in action sometimes.

 

There's another neighborhood south of here where the gentrification went way, way faster than here - like 0 to 60 fast. There's a really swanked out nice gay club with a ton of different rooms and sleek spaces that's incredibly popular and sometimes rented for other events and... they just got gentrified out of their space. Like, the swanky gay club. Oy. So, I think there's a sense that when development gets rolling, sometimes it simply does not stop. And people fear that.

 

I have to admit... just on the face of it, if a business bought a lot for a parking lot in this neighborhood, I'd also it rather stay a vacant lot. Parking lots are ugly. Put that stuff underground or in the suburbs.

 

 

My city has gone tower-crazy lately.  I really hate it - I don't think towers generally create great quality housing, they are usually detrimental to the streetscape, and they aren't the best way to create that density.

 

My mom's area in particular is seeing towers go up all around her.  It's not so much standard gentrification - its an area that has long had some expensive dwellings and shopping.  It's been interesting to see the developments  A few that have been really promoted as luxury housing have had real issues with building quality, and I'm wondering how they will manage.  They've been built with shops on the ground floor which is now considered neighbourhood friendly, but the shops keep flooding and its hard to fix systemic issues like that in such a large building.

 

The developers  seem clueless.  They had a meeting trying to get permissions for a new building across from my mum - when they presented the plans, she had to point out to them that they hadn't planned for the laneway that gives access to her house and others - they didn't realize it existed.  And all the buildings are dominated by two-bedrooms.  When she asked where they expected families to live, they said families didn't want to live downtown.  Well, clearly they haven't looked, because there are families with kids living all around that area, usually in the big flats that have been made in the older homes - the ones they want to knock down to put up towers. 

 

My parents have found moving there mixed - they had hoped in part to retire to an area with a lot of diversity.  But they keep meeting their upper-middle class retirement age friends that are moving into the towers.  I've pointed out those people are looking for the same things they were, and they can afford the new condos.

 

 

[Guest]

 

 

The public transportation complaint is just weird. The tax increase is not small but is not so bad as to off set the advantages. We are planning to go down to one car immediately and we are not the only ones we know planning to do just that. It will connect everything we need to access. It will help house values and people who are lower income all on one swoop. It is an awesome plan!

 

This attitude is what gets people out to vote no. You increase their taxes to benefit yourself..they don't have the margin in their budget. Most of them aren't getting enough annual raise to cover you. You are shoving them out.

 

The successful dense housing in our area,.both the religious group and the group homes, all provide their own transportation. The group home comes out of state taxes, not local. The senior home uses cou ty taxes. The religious group uses a mix of vehicles they own for their needs..that's common here. Often we see busses and vans discharging families at shopping areas on the weekend.

 

My senator had to spend years getting a repeal of the tax to subsidize NY City mass and commuter transit. Its a 45 minute drive for us to access the closest point of suburban rail in, but we all had to pay a tax on our phone bill. Now they tax motorcyclists. Rich city, but they can't pay their own bill. Upstaters don't appreciate that when their kids have to walk up to two miles on roads with no shoulders to get the school bus.

[kewb]

Due to affordable housing laws my overcrowded town keeps getting overruled for turning down apartment developments.

The developers keep saying that commuters with no kids will move in and it won't have an impact on traffic and our already overcrowded schools. Yet, most of the units are 2-3 bedrooms.

I was hoping to live here for another 10-15 years. Get the kids through college and grad school, see where they will settle, and downsize. Now I am not sure we can wait that long.

Edited July 25, 2017 by kewb

[Farrar]

Ugh. The anti-family thing is so annoying. When we moved to our neighborhood, there were a lot of lower income families. It was before we had kids, but I was hopeful that it would be a good place to raise a family eventually. At first, it seemed promising... we made other friends with kids when our boys were born. But then all of those people (except one family) left. And the neighborhood slowly got less and less family friendly. The lower income families were gentrified out, the early gentrifiers like us left before their kids got to be school age or when they had a second kid and needed more space. And with lots of condos going in, it ended up being TONS of professional single people or young childless couples. Bah. Now there's a newer wave of gentrifiers with kids who are making the smaller spaces work or who just have many times more money than we have and have bought houses at the prices we'd never be able to afford. And they're staying. But it means that my kids, at age 12, are unusually old for white, middle class kids in our neighborhood.

 

It hasn't worked that way in some other neighborhoods around us - the neighborhood to our north has a LOT more families of all stripes. It's got less retail and less development because they never had a huge swath of their retail burned down in '68 and never rebuilt. So a different dynamic emerged there. It's like, if the houses are already there, they don't get razed and destroyed to make way for more - maybe a few get split into twos, a few get dreaded popups, but mostly they just stay houses. But if there's anything empty and spacious, look out. Development.

[Χά�ων]

This attitude is what gets people out to vote no. You increase their taxes to benefit yourself..they don't have the margin in their budget. Most of them aren't getting enough annual raise to cover you. You are shoving them out.

 

The successful dense housing in our area,.both the religious group and the group homes, all provide their own transportation. The group home comes out of state taxes, not local. The senior home uses cou ty taxes. The religious group uses a mix of vehicles they own for their needs..that's common here. Often we see busses and vans discharging families at shopping areas on the weekend.

 

My senator had to spend years getting a repeal of the tax to subsidize NY City mass and commuter transit. Its a 45 minute drive for us to access the closest point of suburban rail in, but we all had to pay a tax on our phone bill. Now they tax motorcyclists. Rich city, but they can't pay their own bill. Upstaters don't appreciate that when their kids have to walk up to two miles on roads with no shoulders to get the school bus.

This tax zone is unsual and will not have a massive impact on lower income areas, or I would be against it. The planning commission is fully aware of the need and the financial limits in specific zones amd the tax will impact middle class, upper middle class, and upper class significantly more. All while partially solving the headaches that the lower income people face daily as they spend hours commuting. It will reduce what they spend on passes and the amount of time.

 

It is very unusual in how it is being addressed, oddly enough, that is part of the objections. The rich are suddenly getting taxed proportionally to their benefit. They are loud and has the money to spend to be seen.

 

I would be happy to share specifics in a PM, but not on a public forum.

[momacacia]

I do think it would be nice if they would leave some areas, like a corner here or there, for trees and more green space. Whether there's a retirement home, apartments, McMansions, CVS, whatever. I realize we need some of these things and I guess There is demand, but I think it would be healthier, mentally and otherwise, to leave more green space. I'm on the Burbs and can hit at least 2 Walgreens and a CVS all with in 5 minutes or less. The CVS really wasn't needed and they could have left it a nice field/tree area. Imo anyway. But, I'm not the CEO of CVS.

[Bluegoat]

It is frustrating with public transport - every dollar a city invests in it saves a lot more, so it should ultimatly be an economic win.

 

I think people get scared, though.

 

I'm in an area that's pretty walkable, but not yet trendy, a post-war suburb.  But I get frustrated both with the developers and the anti-developers.  There are issues here that some density and good development would help.  But, then they make development decisions that aren't great, or they try but make mistakes.