Not about to die on a hill for Boise’s municipal leadership, but ADU delusions aside the rewrite did make it easier to build residential and mixed-use, yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Printable View
Not about to die on a hill for Boise’s municipal leadership, but ADU delusions aside the rewrite did make it easier to build residential and mixed-use, yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Slumlord NIMBYism: https://buildingsaltlake.com/murray-...ss-the-street/
"The owner of an apartment complex in Murray has filed a lawsuit seeking to block a new development next door, leaning heavily on purported concerns about increased traffic as the basis to have the court block the new housing...The legal challenge follows a general playbook by opponents of new housing, who often claim that new housing will create congestion but without citing any evidence that the new housing will cause issues."
It did for developers in certain areas. Didn't do much for residential owners. The long term city master plan called for more density in the downtown core which is surrounded by single family residential. They're basically calling for placing people close to where they work creating connectivity in the core but promoting multi-family away from the core. If you think traffic sucks now...
Edit-I'm happy they loosened the noose on housing but the sprawl is pretty rough. Look at the 10 mile area as one of many examples.
Thankfully we’ve got regional light rail coming to the valley any day now, right? lol
You should see the letters some of my neighbors wrote the city about zoning variances requested for a big neighboring empty parcel to allow for more duplex/quadplex homes. Not even a full higher density development...most of the land was still going to be zoned single family with some still having a 2.5acre minimum lot size (which is insane for the proximity to town).Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
They were writing as if someone was trying to build an urban housing project in their back yard...not townhomes that will never sell for less than $5-600k (and probably a lot more than that). Fears about how the housing isn't going to attract the "kind of people we want" and how those people would be "wandering into our neighborhood" (yeah, it is called going for a walk on a public street...if you want to live in a gated community then move to one).
Like sure: I fully agree that a firefighter or a teacher isn't going to move into those units...because they still won't be able to afford them!
How do I know that? Because for 3 years, I lived in a similar 3br townhome in the neighborhood and I know my rent was too high for a teacher with a couple kids to afford. There's like one or two townhomes that have kind of shady characters living in them (not that they've ever caused any problems that I know of...they just have sketchy old cars and are cramming a bunch of adults in there to make rent affordable). The rest are mostly either families who seem exactly like the "kind of people we want" who live in rented units or vacation homes mostly owned by Canadians (might be nice if a local family lived there instead...but they are perfectly nice people when they visit).
Ha...all of the above is on point for Grand County, CO. The engineered solution is protect MY property values, I only want to be neighbors with MY people, leverage the Golden Age of Bullshit, send the bill to somebody else, practice performative empathy and fill the yard with pro affordable housing political signs.
I Zoomed it to my HOAs annual meeting. The eco chamber has gotten so loud that collectively their was little to no understanding the many people can not be available at 1pm due to a pesky job and that money is an actual constraint for some people.
And these are not even the worst of the worst. I get to deal with them later this month for my OTHER HOA.
Sent from a 6 m/s face melting thermal
The best part is that it is pretty much in line with the city's master growth policy that was in place before the people writing the letters purchased their homes.
Upzoning the county/agricultural zoned property when a developer requests it? Part of the plan.
Developing the land next to where your neighborhood was developed (and closer to town at that!)? Part of the plan.
Extending/expanding roads for access? Part of the plan and the ROWs for those potential road extensions have been maintained for years and are clearly visible on maps.
This was all 100% knowable when you bought your house. Hell, a bunch of the houses in this neighborhood border a conservation easement that can't be developed and you'd better believe real estate agents are very quick to point that out...can't pretend to be surprised when a developer shows interest in the non-conservation land.
edit: although I suspect most home owners don't actually do any research into this when they buy and their realtor has no incentive to point out that their quiet little street is earmarked for becoming a busy collector road.
Yep, I've talked about it before but a specific example is a low rise 6 building apt complex in a high density zoning designation served by a water sewer district quarter mile from US40.
It is approved at ever level except HOA who are changing the rules on the fly. In a public meeting they responded to my question that yes a special assessment of $10k per home for legal expenses is good value.
I'm not sure how a judgement against an HOA that doesn't have the reserves would be handled. Perhaps a proportional lien against each home that would be perfected at sale?
Sent from a 6 m/s face melting thermal
I admit I'd be bummed out if a 30-unit apartment building went up on the lot next door. But a 4-townhouse complex where each unit sells for $450k? Bring it on, otherwise everyone in the neighborhood is going to be an old fart like me.
I built a tiny house (240 sq foot downstairs, 100 sq foot loft)Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
it fucking sucks, it's tiny
Anyplace where housing is scarce should have deed restricted full time housing. Once a year the landlord or owner has to prove residency.
Sucks. More regulation.
But in a prime location building second or third homes helps no one.
I’d assume someone currently living on the street or in their car would consider it an upgrade though.Quote:
Originally Posted by NBABUCKS1
That is absolutely true J Barron DeJong
I don’t know if this is a “smart plan” but it’s some left-field marketing.
A Michigan roofer’s smart plan to end the housing crisis
Quote:
For this picture to improve, Americans need to be sold on smaller homes and “cookie cutter” designs. DeHenau thinks Donald Trump can bring back both. After all, the president-elect’s talent is in marketing. He could say, for example, that it’s time to build Trump Towers across America, which would immediately make them sound desirable — even luxurious — in many communities.
I didn't sleep well last night, so a little fuzzy, but how does that help renters? Everyone can not afford to buy let alone come up with the 3.5% down for a FHA loan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
Reduces demand because the housing can only be used for primary residential, not STR, nor left empty 351 nights a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
I call bullshit that a roofer that owns his own company in Detroit can't afford a home. There's been a big price upswing recently, but that upswing would correlate with increased demand for roofing. Maybe not in his preferred neighborhood or preferred size/type of house, but there's lots of stuff available, especially to someone who is capable of making repairs (and isn't that kind of the point of the article--people want too much? a bunch of smaller homes could work if you could market them?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper
Also it says he is 38 but that he started roofing as a teen in the late 90s...were many roofing jobs available to 12 year olds?
But otherwise, yeah, I see it.
[QUOTE]“Trump can take anything from the left that the right hates and make it cool,” DeHenau said. “Call it ‘Trump housing’ and the right will like it.”[\QUOTE]
Trump won't actually do this unless there's a way for it to line his own pockets, but he could easily make 15 minute cities and walkable neighborhoods cool. The right has some irrational hatred for these ideas (they don't seem to understand that you're not required to STAY within 15 minutes of home...it is just nice to have the option to live somewhere where your daily needs can be met within 15 minutes) and as long as it is perceived as a team sport, no progress will be made.
I think the bit of the criteria you are missing is that the restriction is for use as "full time housing" not for being owner-occupied.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
You're welcome to buy the property and lease it out--but only on an initial 12 month (or whatever threshold) lease. No second home use, no AirBNB, no seasonal furnished summer or winter rentals.
Can do it with deed restrictions on certain properties or can do it with significantly higher taxes on properties that don't meet the full-time residence criteria. Rich folk will still buy vacation homes and eat the cost, but local purchasers will be more competitive (since their out of pocket is lower for the same sale price) and landlords will be pushed towards long term rentals.
That makes perfect sense but that's not how I read his post this morning
The RE tax idea is interesting. Here we get $100k off assessed value for a primary residence. Bump that up to $500k or more.
Helps normies and taxes rich and second homeowners
It does not, however, renters that need more housing.
I guess that could be helped by apartment tax breaks to landlords based on residency and income of tenants.
My hood has so many 2nd homes that are vacant 90% of the year it is sad, but these are multi million dollar homes. Even if you taxed the fuck out of owners for the less than occupied 90% of the time (owner/tenant) all that would happen is those homes would be sold, maybe prices would come down a bit as the 2nd home market would be crushed.
Huh? Not a bad idea half a cup of coffee awake.
Makes more sense here...maybe? Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
9,341
Everybody has a great engineered solution until they see the bullseye on themselves. So we just finger point. The second homos talk about supporting the economy. The STRs talk about use by right. The shit bag non living wage paying employers talk about needing workforce housing. The politicians and the realtors...well those are the same people.
Reduced expectations
Zoning enforcement
Legalize Mother in Laws
Public Transportation
Shame $25/hr. employers
Political Accountability
Eliminate supporting property values as an objective
And so on
More places like this https://www.riverruncolorado.com/
How about we look at the basic needs of survival-food, water, shelter? If it's not your primary residence or you own something that is not providing long term shelter ie a long term rental, you are taxed at a much higher rate. Wouldn't ever fly politically, but it's a pretty easy rule of thumb to follow. If you can't feed, hydrate, and shelter your society, you're kind of fucking it up. Nail those, then move on to healthcare, education, etc.
Yeah, it is certainly not a panacea. I've posted in this thread before about how Maui taxes non-residences ...but plenty of rich people still own multi-million dollar vacation homes in Maui (although Maui property tax rates are low overall...the "high" rate for a 2nd home is 4x the resident rate but may actually be lower than the tax rate they pay on their primary home in somewhere like CA or NY)Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
But it would help on the margin. The row of town houses in my neighborhood that are half owned by Canadians? Maybe that drops to only 25%.
And I think it would help with my pet peeve: developers building houses that are clearly designed to be vacation homes not family residences. That has the effect of making them more appealing to out of towners--even if I could afford the new build, I'm not going to be the high bidder because the layout sucks for someone who actually lives/works/raises a family full time. I'd live there only if I could get it cheap, but for a 2nd home purchaser that design is actually an asset and increases their willingness to bid higher.
A higher tax rate counteracts that and might encourage more developers to build homes designed for actual residents as residents are now slightly stronger bidders.
Yep, exactly. I like the schedule posted from hawaii earlier in the thread that goes low to high on tax of primary res-rented long term-vaca home-short term rental.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Oh fuck you, that just makes too much common sense for the political environment we live in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
Aspen couldn't survive without STR's. It takes 10x longer and cost 5x as much to build, as a normal town. Thanks to government bureaucracy.
Do the under housed, need to be sheltered in resort towns?
How about incentives, instead of lets tax the fuck out of rich fuckers.
Which is everyone that makes more than me. But don't raise my taxes.
Seriously, do you guys really think that the government is efficient and effective at managing micro economics?
If Aspen can’t survive without STRs, does it need to survive?
Yeah, I agree with everything you said Shred but don't get the STR part.
Jeez who woulda thought Aspen was on the brink of ruin without Airbnb. I guess someone should let all the billionaires know. Watch out Jackson...
Would you rather have STRs or vacant second homes?
Just go full on Uber wealth utopia billionaire and slaves only. Own it.
Whatever it takes to keep Aspen breathing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
https://www.elev8fraser.com/
Developers be killing is with this style of high density single family. This is 15mins from the ski area. 5mins from Fraser. No yard. Minimal parking. Piss of your deck onto the neighbor's deck.Quote:
1074 GCR 8, Fraser
2,146-square-foot, three-bedroom, 1.75-bath, single-family residence on 0.0248 acres of land.
Seller: Elev8 Property LLC
Buyer: Maggie and Clayton Kenney
Price: $1,223,450
That last sentence is certainly worth somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
0.0248 acres
doh....
Are you against that style? Personally I'm a huge fan of high density close to core areas. Beats the hell out of the 35+ acre ranchette sprawl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
So long as there is adequate parking (underground?) it is all good in my mind.
I am honestly unsure why someone would be against that kind of high density development in recreation-centric areas. I mean, the price is still too high, but we need more 3bd 2bth 2000sf houses with minimal yards IMO. Have a small balcony garden, send the kids to the neighborhood park to play, and trailheads <15mins drive time. Efficient use of land, keep building till supply outstrips demand and prices come back down to earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
Everyone thinks they deserve 3000sf on 2 acres in a desireable area for $500k.
New zoning, I'm seeing several SFH lots carved and 4-6 units put up. Great business model I guess, the one closest sold for 1.7 M, was leveled and 2 3/2 duplex condos 2400 sqft, with attached 2/2s behind 1300sqft, and 2 1100sqft small houses in back.
All priced above $750/soft. 2 front u nit's with single car garages both went at 1.7-1.8, the small units priced at 800-900k. Builder had 7.2M total listed on the one 60-100 lot.
800K for a small house in the back yard... with no parking spots. More density but not really affordable housing.