- - - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (excerpt) - - - > So, let me take this opportunity to offer some good > stuff to whomever may want it: - - - end excerpt - - -
In addition to a tax deductable donation to the ReUse center, a good local resource for getting rid of stuff you don't need (or finding stuff you do): http://www.twincitiesfreemarket.org/ Regarding garages: I personally like having one (I don't own a car), but not everyone wants or needs one. Having the city force people to build one strikes me as a bad idea. I'm personally annoyed by how many ugly and cheaply constructed buildings are being put up and would prefer to see all new constructions be built to last 100 or 500 years as opposed to 20, but we don't have the right to tell other people (beyond a point) what they can or cannot do on their own property. This is preferable to allowing a bureaucracy to have complete control over what we do. Gated communities may work for some folks, but not for me (unless, of course, I get to make the rules). So instead of forcing people to build garages, in the spirit of capitalism, let those who use pay. The problem is not that some people don't have garages. The problem is that there are less parking spots than people who want to park. Right now, those spots are paid for by local taxpayers, whether we use them or not. There are ways to do it, but assess a cost for using the resource. If there are more people that want the resource than spots available, raise the price until the market balances. Use some of those proceeds to lower the taxes of everyone who is currently paying for those parking spots and consider using additional proceeds to increase the availability of the resource (parking ramps, etc.) Hmm.. could the city partially subsidize a mixed-use housing development by putting a municipal ramp under the property and granting the residents and business owners a discounted parking fee? It wouldn't work for every situation, but it may work in some new developments - say a mixed-use library... Construction needs to meet basic safety standards and the final product needs to be honestly represented (yes, these carpets will be outgassing toxic fumes for the next two months and the walls are good for about 35 years...) Beyond that, let the market do it's job and keep the city out of it as much as possible. . . . Incidentally, I've been trying to develop a viable model that would involve some municipal/community influence over new developments to solve what I see as a couple problems: * A development does have an impact on the community it is in. Appearance and sound do have an impact on the people who live or work nearby as well as on property values. In the case of a business, traffic and patronage can certainly affect quality of life for the neighbors. I want to find a way for the community to have an influence on these factors without being tyrannical. * Primarily in businesses, there is sometimes the situation where a business controls a property, profits for many years, and then either goes through a bankruptcy or somehow unloads the property on the city or county. If you're just talking a structure, no biggie, but sometimes there is an extensive amount of cleanup required which will cost much more than the property will be worth. The taxpayer of course, foots this as the businesses profits have long been distributed to owners/shareholders/employees and are protected by the corporate shield or bankruptcy. Big mounds of vermiculite, toxic seepings from an autobody garage, canisters of nuclear waste, etc. Even for private property, an abandoned house can cost more to deconstruct/demolish than the parcel it sits on is worth - again, the taxpayer foots the bill. I would also like to encourage the development of long-term buildings. When economics only look at the short term, there isn't much incentive to build for quality and durability, but it seems that if I can spend 100k on a building that will be good for 20 years or 200k on a building that will be good for 200 years, the latter is ultimately more cost effective (provided that the design is good enough to ensure the building stays useful). Having old buildings (in good condition) can also help an area develop and maintain a sense of history and community. Similar to the first issue, I don't want to force the property owner to do this, but if it can be encouraged or made more viable, I see that as a good thing. This is not yet viable, but I'd like to give an overview of what I'm thinking so that anyone who is interested can think about it and get back to me with comments/suggestions/critiques. My initial idea is to be certain that funds to cover the cost of deconstruction/demolition are in escrow. It is probably going to be prohibitively expensive to require the complete amount be put in escrow up front and this does not address the neighborhood or quality issues. So... First, have an expert (city employee? private practice?) review the area and the building plans to determine: a) The estimated cost of deconstruction/demolition. This should include environmental cleanup for anything that deals with potentially toxic substances. b) The estimated lifespan of the structure This has to be done in a manner that keeps the impact of bureaucracy to a minimum and politics non-existent. The cost is then prorated over the lifespan of the structure and each year, the portion is paid into the escrow account. So, if deconstruction is estimated at $100,000 and the lifespan is 50 years, the owner will need to put $2,000 a year into the escrow. (Note, this will also encourage using methods of construction that will allow a greater amount of the building to be recycled during deconstruction) Now to give the community their input... The community (Neighborhood organization? elected committee? mailing sent to every house in 4 blocks? to be determined) gets together and reviews the design. If they believe the structure is perfect for their community and fits in (likely to be maintained rather than torn down to build something else), they can extend that lifespan to a certain extent. If it is hideous and inappropriate, or really uninspired and cheap looking, they can shorten that lifespan (since it will be likely torn down sooner). So if that $100,000 deconstruct fits the neighborhood well, maybe the lifespan becomes 60 years, so the owner only has to put $1,667 per year. If it is pretty out of place, maybe it becomes 40 years, so the owner has to put in $2,500 per year. Ultimately, no matter how cheap or expensive the building, no matter how ugly or inspired it is, the owner still pays $100,000 into escrow - the question is, over how long? The money would belong to the property owner until the unit is deconstructed/demolished. Perhaps they should be able to choose how to invest it (of course, if they loose money, they will have to make it up). Investment profits might cover a portion of the next year's payment or property tax or go into the owner's pocket. Once the unit is demolished, if it costs less than is in escrow, the owner would keep the remainder. If it costs more, the owner is responsible for covering those costs. Of course, this is a preliminary concept and there are some definite issues to be worked out. * Truly being sure the original estimates are as fair as possible. * "Surprise" costs of deconstruction resulting in bankruptcy like a discovery that vermiculite happens to be bad for you. - My sense is that these things are unavoidable and the taxpayer will still occasionally have to step in. There are going to be situations of underestimation and bankruptcy or possibly poor investment of the escrow and bankruptcy that could be in this category as well. * Property sale/transfer - does the original owner get their money back and the process restarted (possible disincentive to buy old buildings), is the escrow considered part of the property value (ouch, expensive!). How should this work? Seller's choice? Is there a better way to accomplish these goals? * Is allowing the community to shorten or lengthen the viable lifespan of the structure fair? Is allowing the community any say fair? Who is the community? * How to handle existing property? Grandfather clause? * How to handle inflation, building modification or surprises in the structure (for better or worse)? Periodic re-inspection? Periodic re-estimation? Let it ride? * How does this affect affordable housing? Can/should the city do anything to work around this? (My gut tells me that in the long run it will ensure more affordable housing, but the first decade or so may be a little rough) * Will this encourage arson? I'm sure more issues will be brought up, but hopefully some improvements to the idea will as well. My sense is that there is almost no way to completely avoid the taxpayers every having to pay, but I think it can be improved significantly. I'm interested in trying to refine this into something viable, and would appreciate (almost) any comments or suggestions that you may have. - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
