Tom Goldstein/Elysian Fields Quarterly writes:

>>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.

That's what we try to do ... 

>>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.

Well, let me take a different tack to make my point.  We recently
approved a 50+ lot development in one of the remaining non-developed
areas in Shoreview.  The average lot size is under 11,000 square feet
and the developer projects an average lot price of $250,000.

Let's say that the developer came in with the same tract of land and
with 100+ lots averaging about 5500 square feet ... a zero-lot line
Planned Unit Development (PUD) for example.  Lot prices would be
approximately $125,000 ... average home price would still be in excess
of $275,000 or so (which is above the FHA loan cut-off).
 
(I calculated that home price both using the typical multiplier for
home price versus lot price and anticipated home size of 1200-1500
finished square feet and 800 - 1100 square feet foundation size)

The City of Shoreview didn't dictate the purchase price of that tract
of land ... and lot sizes don't really play the villainous role that
you project.

BTW, the City of Shoreview does and has approved lots below the
required minimums through the Planned Unit Development process.  But
the City can't force the developer to make that proposal.

The underlying issue of affordability seems to really lie with the
marketplace.  

Another example:  Starter homes in the mid-1950s often were 3
bedrooms, 1 bath with living room and either a large kitchen with
eat-in capacity or a small kitchen and a dining area.  Generally they
ran around 900 - 1000 finished square feet and often had no garage or
a one-car garage.  

Often, today's starter home is a 2-3 bedroom townhome with 1 or 1.5
baths, and the same general square footage.  (And those townhome
developments are more frequently approved by suburbs than not)

The key distinction between the 1950's starter home and today's
townhome is the amount of land per unit and the developer's ability to
recover the acquisition price.  Lot size minimums aren't an issue.
Shoreview (and most suburban communities) routinely approves townhome
developments.


>>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. 

Out of curiosity, how many times have townhome developments been
denied?  Except for a few exceptions (North Oaks comes to mind -- but
that's a true exception to most rules), suburbs do and have approved
multi-unit proposals, townhome developments and Planned Unit
Developments that have lot sizes below published minimums.  

Take a look at most suburban comprehensive plans and you'll find
housing policies and housing goals that provide for those types of
developments.



Rick Mons
   Tanglewood neighborhood of 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/

Reply via email to