I agree. The biggest problem is the greatest beneficiaries of greater density are the people that don't yet live here. The entrenched power has little incentive to fix the problem.Just looked it up and it’s 19k/sq mile. So the absolute densest city in MA is...again...less dense than Queens.
If people are making a choice not to make more housing then they shouldn’t complain when people leverage the existing supply against them to effectively steal their money. This is what you voted for.
Because, NYC is run by idiots. Just look at BdB - perpetually stuck in a windshield perspective. Kind of happy I moved away from there (but who knows, life may take me back in that direction depending on my partner's future schooling options)Kind of amazing how parking garages in NYC charge $300 or more a month to store your car there, establishing what the approximate market price for that is. (Would probably be less further out but still) The city allows millions of car owners to park on the streets in perpetuity for free though! Sweet!
I live in MA as well and I dont buy that one but. Even in Somerville, one of the densest cities in New England, there is plenty of land. Lots and lots of space dedicated to car storage, abandoned lots, restrictions on maximum building heights, unused large sections of existing plots that could probably support additional units, etc...
My city, Somerville, recently did away with many of those if within a half mile of a rapid transit station. But I still get to store my private vehicle on city streets for the low low cost of $40/year. What a steal!
Parking is a red herring. We should be looking to undo the damage that single family zoning has unleashed on our communities. Build cities at human scales with appropriate mass transit (buses can be great with bus lanes) and you'll alleviate some of that parking "need" as families will be able to get by with fewer or no cars.Agreed and there are vacant old business type building which could be converted just not many.
Converting an existing structure typically doesn’t create more housing unless it is the parking lot example or semi vacant business but honestly how many more homes could you fit into those spots and how rapidly would those new homes be absorbed.
I do believe my City should look into the building height restrictions but that comes with a new problem that we don’t have now. Allow people to build up for more units means you will need more parking.
Also parking garages exist.Parking is a red herring. We should be looking to undo the damage that single family zoning has unleashed on our communities. Build cities at human scales with appropriate mass transit (buses can be great with bus lanes) and you'll alleviate some of that parking "need" as families will be able to get by with fewer or no cars.
Parking is a red herring. We should be looking to undo the damage that single family zoning has unleashed on our communities. Build cities at human scales with appropriate mass transit (buses can be great with bus lanes) and you'll alleviate some of that parking "need" as families will be able to get by with fewer or no cars.
A lot of those other concerns are merely tangential. City services (schools, police, etc) should have no issues expanding if the tax base is also expanded.Then you need mass transit and in my area many leave the City to work elsewhere.
What I am saying is housing is complicated because everyone has different needs, changes always have unintended consequences and unlike many other market based items there is a limit because land cannot be created and can be very limited in some areas.
We haven’t even touched other aspects of housing like:
Police to Citizen ratio
Will increased housing require more fire stations and trucks
How about ambulances
What about the schools are they appropriately staffed and sized to handle more kids. If a new school needs to be built what land will be used
How about the roads, will additional housing make travel needlessly slow or frustrating. Will increased traffic effect business
Will the existing water & sewer lines handle extra load, how much extra can they handle, what needs to be done if the cannot
If we allow closer building to the wetlands what happens to the water run off
Housing is very complicated and there simply is no one solution that is going to work for all.
A lot of those other concerns are merely tangential. City services (schools, police, etc) should have no issues expanding if the tax base is also expanded.
Many people are deeply unimaginative and cannot envision a world not centered around the personal automobile.
If you own outright can you get a refund on your mortgage? Just to be fair.........
Why would the taxes have to go up if more people move in?I know, I also know a bunch of us would also complain that the taxes are going up and now low income & old people can’t afford it.
Again no one solution is going to work everywhere.
Why would the taxes have to go up if more people move in?
Somerville MA? Howdy neighbor!
More people moving in = more people that can pay local taxes. City service expansion doesn't exist in a vacuum or need to precede population expansion - it can be done concurrentlyRoad improvements, school improvement, Police improvements, Fire improvements, sewer improvements, more teachers, more Police, more fire fighters.
Trash removal, landfill
List really could be endless.
More people moving in = more people that can pay local taxes. City service expansion doesn't exist in a vacuum or need to precede population expansion - it can be done concurrently
The answer for all of those things is to use the increased tax revenue from new residents to pay for them, the same way the residents did when they moved to your town previously.Then you need mass transit and in my area many leave the City to work elsewhere.
What I am saying is housing is complicated because everyone has different needs, changes always have unintended consequences and unlike many other market based items there is a limit because land cannot be created and can be very limited in some areas.
We haven’t even touched other aspects of housing like:
Police to Citizen ratio
Will increased housing require more fire stations and trucks
How about ambulances
What about the schools are they appropriately staffed and sized to handle more kids. If a new school needs to be built what land will be used
How about the roads, will additional housing make travel needlessly slow or frustrating. Will increased traffic effect business
Will the existing water & sewer lines handle extra load, how much extra can they handle, what needs to be done if the cannot
If we allow closer building to the wetlands what happens to the water run off
Housing is very complicated and there simply is no one solution that is going to work for all.
If your argument is that the average tax payer provides less revenue than the town needs to service them by that logic your town should be bankrupt.Well the point is adding let’s say 30 houses, those new houses are not going to be able to absorb the cost of two new fire fighters and one new teacher by taxes alone. Other tax payers will have to chip in.
The answer for all of those things is to use the increased tax revenue from new residents to pay for them, the same way the residents did when they moved to your town previously.
If your argument is that the average tax payer provides less revenue than the town needs to service them by that logic your town should be bankrupt.
Terrible idea. These people have no responsibility to these renters. They invested their money into it with the idea of making money. It sucks to be the people being booted out but in no way shape or form is it on the landlord to foot the bill.
We both know what is going to happen, existing people will have to pay more taxes, personally I’m fine with it.
We both know those increased taxes will impact the Elderly and low income more.
We both know we’d both complain on this forum about low income people having a lean put on their house for back taxes.
Again as I have said multiple times there is no one size fits all solution.
We both most certainly don't know that, I'm saying your position here is fundamentally illogical. You are claiming that new residents to a town are a net tax drain on that town. If that were true then shrinking towns would have sounder finances than growing ones when exactly the opposite is true. Your whole premise here is the opposite of reality.
While there is no one size fits all solution in the long run the situation in much of northeastern and western America is so bad that at the moment one size really does fit all. Basically every municipality needs to radically upzone and majorly increase density. Not just double construction, in many cases increase it tenfold as we have a multi-decade backlog of homes to create and it's crushing people with obscene rents.
So why doesn't California or the city of Santa Monica just foot the bill? These landlords aren't going to see a dime of the deferment. You cannot decide how you are going to donate somebody else's money. Would you be okay with the city of Santa Monica deciding you were well off so you're going to pay for someone's expenses for the next year?The landlord isn’t footing the bill it is a defferement.
But yes the landlords do absorb much of the cost.
So it is a local issue that should be locally addressed with a local solution?