Very good post David - in many aspects of this world, solutions to problems are prioritized on how much money can be made doing it.
Democrats pile on their own layers of ineffectiveness; here are their knee-jerk priorities when faced with any problem: 1) Pass a Tax; 2) Pass more Regulations; 3) Institute more Procedures. But like you said, never address the original cause of the problem.
For example, here are 3 solutions to our local housing problem, that cost nothing, take no time, and are easy to understand. And would work:
1) Eliminate most ADU regulations. Keep the one per lot and a maximum size of 800-1,000SF rules, and throw out the other 10 pages that accomplishes little.
2) Eliminate all Minimum Parking regulations. Boulder runs a marketing campaign against car use while its regulates mandate they be accomodated, at significant cost.
3) Eliminate R-1 Zoning. Period; just throw it out. Quick, easy, costs nothing.
Thanks, Buzz. This makes me think of the line from my housing piece in the Daily Camera: "Zoning is not a Flatiron, and can be easily modified." There's no technical challenge to eliminating parking requirements--something I recently discussed with a local developer about the barriers to building affordable housing. Same goes with ADU limits (which are soooo stupid), R1, and occupancy limits (the dumbest of them all). In the same vein, I recently produced a piece on KGNU's show, "It's the Economy" about adaptive reuse and low-cost/homeless housing. There's 3.2M square feet of unoccupied commercial real estate in Boulder County alone and 126M (4.5 square miles!) across the Denver Metro area. I wanted the segment to suggest that perhaps some of these properties, while not ideal housing, would provide better shelter than a creek-side tent or overnight shelter or an apartment that costs 80% of take-home income for a retail worker. Unfortunately, Boulder officials are still following the taxation, regulation, and procedural pathway to doing the right thing--Byzantine pathways that are easily derailed by the interests of existing stakeholders who have the inertia of the status quo on their sides. And lo, nothing changes. (Link to KGNU program: https://www.kgnu.org/economy/2/2/2023)
Right! Boulder I think is a little different, because while the goal is certainly not to actually solve the problem, it's not to make money either - our overarching goal is to feel good about ourselves. Boulder's thousand pages of policies are similar to the affirmations people put on their bathroom mirrors!
Love it! It reminds me of a saying I heard: “many people think not getting an intended result plus a good excuse is the same as getting the intended result.” It’s not.
I cannot inure myself to any of it, try as I have. Call me a classist aesthete, but it's all too f#cking vulgar and ugly. And as much as I appreciate your sentiment, I would never mark up my beloved Flatiron with the entrails of a land/housing hoarder.
"A tree?" = best tweet ever!
Very good post David - in many aspects of this world, solutions to problems are prioritized on how much money can be made doing it.
Democrats pile on their own layers of ineffectiveness; here are their knee-jerk priorities when faced with any problem: 1) Pass a Tax; 2) Pass more Regulations; 3) Institute more Procedures. But like you said, never address the original cause of the problem.
For example, here are 3 solutions to our local housing problem, that cost nothing, take no time, and are easy to understand. And would work:
1) Eliminate most ADU regulations. Keep the one per lot and a maximum size of 800-1,000SF rules, and throw out the other 10 pages that accomplishes little.
2) Eliminate all Minimum Parking regulations. Boulder runs a marketing campaign against car use while its regulates mandate they be accomodated, at significant cost.
3) Eliminate R-1 Zoning. Period; just throw it out. Quick, easy, costs nothing.
Thanks, Buzz. This makes me think of the line from my housing piece in the Daily Camera: "Zoning is not a Flatiron, and can be easily modified." There's no technical challenge to eliminating parking requirements--something I recently discussed with a local developer about the barriers to building affordable housing. Same goes with ADU limits (which are soooo stupid), R1, and occupancy limits (the dumbest of them all). In the same vein, I recently produced a piece on KGNU's show, "It's the Economy" about adaptive reuse and low-cost/homeless housing. There's 3.2M square feet of unoccupied commercial real estate in Boulder County alone and 126M (4.5 square miles!) across the Denver Metro area. I wanted the segment to suggest that perhaps some of these properties, while not ideal housing, would provide better shelter than a creek-side tent or overnight shelter or an apartment that costs 80% of take-home income for a retail worker. Unfortunately, Boulder officials are still following the taxation, regulation, and procedural pathway to doing the right thing--Byzantine pathways that are easily derailed by the interests of existing stakeholders who have the inertia of the status quo on their sides. And lo, nothing changes. (Link to KGNU program: https://www.kgnu.org/economy/2/2/2023)
Right! Boulder I think is a little different, because while the goal is certainly not to actually solve the problem, it's not to make money either - our overarching goal is to feel good about ourselves. Boulder's thousand pages of policies are similar to the affirmations people put on their bathroom mirrors!
Love it! It reminds me of a saying I heard: “many people think not getting an intended result plus a good excuse is the same as getting the intended result.” It’s not.
I cannot inure myself to any of it, try as I have. Call me a classist aesthete, but it's all too f#cking vulgar and ugly. And as much as I appreciate your sentiment, I would never mark up my beloved Flatiron with the entrails of a land/housing hoarder.