Printable View
Has anyone been to Park City lately that has 20-30 yr knowledge of the landscape? Because holy fuck, that corridor from PC to Heber is a cluster fuck of new buildings on barren bluffs. I'm not sure any of it will be affordable housing, but a local could chime in.
I do like visiting Cham but I don't want to live in Cham. But if I did live there, I'd have things that actually makes density workable starting with amazing bus service in the valley and regular train service across the continent. None of those things exist here. Conceivably we could have a workable bus system, but building ADUs in SFH neighborhoods doesn't make the county triple the busses being run on each route.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Density for small towns starts with a working livable town core and density should surround it. Adding ADUs to SFH neighborhoods doesn't do that and it doesn't solve the housing problem. It creates more STRs that worsen the problem. It will benefit me monetarily. I am just bothered by the ham fisted centralization of control that won't solve the problems it is supposed to.
Oh yea... and there is an affordable housing crisis in Chamonix... wanna know why? Because there is literally infinite demand coming from a world sized market of buyers focused on a small valley to compete with locals. What was your point about Cham and density again?
The affordability problem in Chamonix would be even worse if it had the density of Dillon Colorado.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
It's a common argument made by opponents of density. They argue if density will make things cheaper, then why is San Francisco and London so expensive? But what would these places be like if they were even less dense than they are?
There is an affordability crisis in every desirable location on earth. It's not like Chamonix or Summit County, CO are unique in their worldwide demand. People want to live in the nice places on earth, whether it's in resort towns in Colorado, or next to the ocean with mild climate and strong job centers like where I live.
Snob. Down zoning is real as is reverse subdivide. People hate apartment buildings.
Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse
"The only Colorado mayor who spoke in support of the bill at a Capitol news conference Wednesday rolling out the legislation was Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett."Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
None of the affected mountain towns are in favor.
Well, no shit the resort towns are against it. The point of the law is to shove upzoning down their throats becuase they won't do it themselves.
Just because only Boulder mayor spoke in favor of it doesn't mean the mayors of the big cities are against it. Here in Washington, Seattle wasn't thrilled about it but the leaders knew that if they spoke out against it they would risk pissing off their liberal constituents. These state ADU and upzoning laws are a liberal movement. They make for strange bedfellows becuase the progressive liberals are promoting the same laws as the big developers. Even if CO doesn't pass this law today, they will in the not too distant future. Liberal ideas in the West come from CA, WA, and OR and then migrate their way to CO. I could see even UT, MT, and ID jumping on board. Maine and Minnesota have jumped on board so this movement isn't isolated to the West.
How is letting someone build an additional unit on their property, if they so choose, ‘centralization of control’?
"I'm leaving CA for CO because it is expensive, crowded, and the taxes are too high. Oh hey let's make CO like CA!"Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Attachment 455556
Land use is currently controlled locally. The law takes that power and lets the state decide what the land use rules are, what consideration and impacts and rules around it matter. It prevents local governments from considering whether building units is appropriate for things like parking, water consideration, neighborhood character, transit, or deed restrictions. No community control is permitted in solving their housing problems. Nevermind if the state imposed solution won't solve the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
What happens when the state says "yes to solve the housing crisis, you can park your RV, or station wagon, anywhere and live in it." Freedumb!!!
The state politicians from the big city know best! Fuck what the people who are in the community want... that is unless they want to develop some more STRs... go right ahead with that.
This was a popular poster when I lived in Boulder 20+ years ago. You can't blame CA for making CO liberal. Plenty of NE and Midwestern liberals have taken over that state as well. And a few WA and OR folks as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
Attachment 455596
But leaving it up to the individual areas is exactly what leads to NIMBYism, and nothing get built, and then everyone complains that housing is unaffordable…Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
I am guessing you are also opposed to urban growth boundary and growth management laws, which are state laws that the cities must comply with whether they want to or not, and exist in CA, OR, and WA.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
Don't know much about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
My objection is not about urban areas though. ;)
You are right that Denver mayor is against the law. Although he agrees with the goal of the law, he doesn't like losing power to the state.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/gov...fc8c05f5a.html
Like I said, quite different out here on the West Coast where the cities have bought into this idea. Give it some time and Denver mayor will change his mind. You can predict the future of CO by looking West.
Growth Management Act in WA applies to all counties with populations greater than 20,000. Growth management and urban growth boundaries aren't just for the big cities but would apply to places like Summit Co, CO (if that was in Washington).Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
If water use is the true issue, we should start limiting offspring. We're dinks...we could have two kids or build an ADU a couple could live in and have the same affect on the water supply. One choice would impact the local workforce immediately, one would in 20 years maybe.
In cities yes, not that is NOT true in the mountains. It is a different set of problems causing the worker housing shortage.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
I've outlined the difference in the source of the problems in the mountains being different than the cities: in the mountains it isn't a lack of building nor a lack of land that is the problem. The problem is insatiable demand from a world market for second homes, remote workers, and STRs vs high build costs. That is why the mountain towns are pursuing a strategy of building subsidized deed restricted MDUs.
This legislation doesn't help with the mountain specific problems, forbids local concerns and community cost considerations, and explicitly prohibits the solutions desired by the towns. THIS is what I mean by centralizing control.
I don’t buy that there’s an insatiable demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
I could see that there could be a first mover problem though. If one are liberalizes their building rules while everywhere else is still restricting, that could lead to an area being flooded.
Seems like there is alot money to be made on multifamily developments with public-private partnerships in these towns.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Do a mix of market rate and affordable units, market rate income subsidizes the affordable rents. Tenant income gets recertified at lease renewal and leases prohibit sublets to keep STR's out. Do TIF for necessary infrastructure upgrades. Towns can either lease the land to the developer or deed-restrict it to enforce compliance.
There's alot of levers that can be pulled to make the numbers work, but the first step is local gov. accepting large multifamily developments in Mountain Town USA.
Here is what I mean by insatiable demand: if you put units for sale, a local buyer is competing against a market of buys that isn't local, it is the state, the country, the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
For rentals, for every local worker that wants to rent a 1BR at $1700/mo, there are 3 remote workers and 3 front rangers who will pay $2300 or more to only LTR but use it on the weekends and pow days, and even more visitors who will pay $300+ per night to STR, more on the holidays. That is the market mechanics. That is why all the building up here hasn't solved the housing problem and why the local government has turned to deed restriction as the solution.
This new law doesn't allow a requirement for deed restriction to ensure housing is for local workers.
Now back to the ADU. If it takes $2000+/mo for an owner to cashflow a 1BR ADU build, guess what the ADU gets used for?
Summit continues to fuck the NIMBY chicken.
A lot of that is happening. Around me there have been huge workforce townhouse and condo developments over the last few years. Two large development, one of 66 triplex/duplex/condos and one of 196 condos, and they are building another 36.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skistack
There are certainly exceptions where the government fucks it up, like Town of Vail trying to condemn Vail Resorts property that they were going to build employee housing on.
But overall, the problem is not that they won't accept it. It is that the landowners won't build deed restricted because it is way more profitable to do something else: luxury units.
I cant even imagine how many times a day you must get told facts not in evidence. Quit misrepresenting the discussion. It’s really fucking annoying.
Edit. That was for Alta if it wasn’t clear enough
Summit actually makes sense.
Whether ADU or more apartments they need to be LTR not STR.
STR fucks shit up.
Anything new should be deed restricted not to be STR.
If you ADU then both that unit and the original home should not be STR.
I'm completely confused why the businesses in these mountain town HCOL locales don't just increase the wages paid to labor so that they can either cover their housing costs or transportation costs to live farther away.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
Aren't you just subsidizing the externalization of a business cost and poor financial decisions of people who can't actually afford to live in these places with public dollars?