Rick: I've been on the job six months, so I'll hardly argue that I'm an expert on housing. But a couple of points in response.
1. What people may do under the guise of concern about a project in order to mask their flat out objection based on NIMBYism is undeniable. However, I think there are legitimate concerns that people may raise in terms of design, quality, aesthetics and traffic congestion that have merit. University United's involvement in the CVS Pharmacy design, for example, was certainly based on legitimate design concerns. Others of course will object for perhaps illegitimate reasons and couch their concerns in acceptable ways, but then it's up to people who sit on planning boards to be able to distinguish between what's legitimate and what's merely NIMBYism. 2. As for why affordable housing is scarce in the suburbs, I respectfully disagree that it's simply supply and demand and not a function of lot size. Yes, demand for large lots (in order to build large homes) is clearly a main factor as to why new homes are generally not affordable to low income earners who may want to live in Woodbury, Shorewood, and other suburban enclaves. And, admittedly, most for-profit developers want to build expensive homes--that's where they make the most money. But there are nonprofit developers and for profit developers who would build multi-unit structures and smaller homes if they could get zoning approved to allow those kind of uses. Now, I don't know the zoning laws in many communities, but my general understanding from conversations with developers and housing advocates is that there are minimum lot size requirements in many communities and an unwillingness to allow higher density housing except in very limited instances. Thus, acres and acres of neighborhoods are all 2,000 to 3,000 square foot homes--nothing smaller and nothing to rent. So you don't get mixed use, only one use. Undeniably, there is great demand for many of these homes (I would argue because there's a widening disparity in income, but that's another discussion). Nonetheless, if developers seeking to provide low income housing that is aesthetically pleasing were permitted to subdivide lots or do higher density projects, there would be more affordability in these communities. Of course, I also find that there are many who don't want "those people" in their communities, but probably just as many who believe people should be able to live in the communities where they work, especially when they learn that "those people" are often teachers, cops, bank tellers, secretaries, day care workers, and many other folks who help make the community thrive. Best, Tom Goldstein Mac-Groveland ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Mons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [StPaul] Midway - Senior Housing Project > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:05:16 -0500 "Tom Goldstein/Elysian Fields Quarterly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can also understand why > > opposition would exist, especially for a five-story structure in what > > appears to be an area with mostly single-family homes and two-to-three story > > apartment buildings. So I think it's healthy if there is concern among > > neighbors about any new developments that may be planned, so long as that > > concern is about design and quality and aesthetics and potential traffic > > issues rather than strictly from NIMBYism, i.e., we don't want it in our > > neighborhood under any circumstances, > > I've spent over 12 years on two different Planning Commissions (and chaired each for a total of five years) and never heard anyone really say NIMBY. The complaints are _always_ positioned in terms of design, quality, aesthetics and traffic congestion. Usually comparative density and the need to protect/preserve nature get trotted out as well. > > More often than not, however, the true underlying complaint is NIMBY. > > ›the attitude often confronted in the > > suburbs where land is so expensive because zoning laws have been written to > > ensure minimum lot sizes that generally discourage the development of low > > income housing. That attitude accounts, in part, for why there is such a > > shortage of quality affordable housing, but I always think it's important > > for neighbors to be concerned about any new developments in the > > neighborhood. > > Hate to burst your bubble, but the reason why land is so expensive in the suburbs has little to do with minimum lot size and much more to do with the marketplace and the sellers' market for vacant land that bids up the prices to high levels. > > And, we often receive Planned Unit Development proposals which propose smaller-than -'permitted' lots in order to generate _more_ living units so that the land acquisition/development costs can be shared among a larger number of units and not be priced outside a willing market's price level. > > There are two developments coming on line in our community. One has projected lot costs of $200k and the other around $250k Both are PUDs with lots either just at or below the minimum required. > > Rick Mons > Tanglewood - Shoreview > _____________________________________________ > To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _____________________________________________ > NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul > > Archive Address: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ > _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
