And then there were two... (Boston, Brockton: tax, live, prices)

[WestieWhitie]

Let's see...

Speed up approval process so it takes weeks, not years or even decades, from closing to shovels in the ground?

Do away with all the NIMBY-mandated shadow, noise, traffic and earthworm migration "studies" adding up to cool seven figures when dealing with a small ten unit building and not a 60 story tower?

Laugh the "too big' and "out of character" whining out of each and every meeting instead of sending every plan back to the drawing board?


All of those result in added expense that gets passed down to the buyer, and if the buyer is unwilling to pay then the project simply doesn't happen. That's why you only see new construction in places where buyers are willing to pony up $800K+ for a shoebox-sized two bedroom.

Originally Posted by id77

Now we have something to work with.

Stupid Libertarian slippery-slope fears of freedom deprivation aside, what do you see as it relates to zoning laws and smaller unit size that's going to help here? What zoning restrictions are you seeing as an obstacle, and given the number of <400 square foot units already out there, how much smaller are you thinking here?

I get the argument about parking, and it's going to go on forever, but since we're discussing theoretical here, I'll give that one a pass that it could happen (and would reduce cost burden to developers) in this scenario...at least until developers realize there's such a pent-up demand for parking that they stop building housing and start building garages to sell spots for $600/month.

[WestieWhitie]

Try reading again. And again. And again, until you get. If you still don't get it there's really no point in arguing with you.

Originally Posted by timberline742

Neither, just educated.

And so you want no zoning and want to be able to put a strip club next to a grade school, a nightclub or plating plant in a densely residential neighborhood, a shooting range next to a playground, etc because its private property and no one else's business. Got it.

I don't think many people agree with lack of zoning. They disagree with how the zoning looks like. Thankfully there is a process for changing it.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

Try reading again. And again. And again, until you get. If you still don't get it there's really no point in arguing with you.

Maybe because you aren't very articulate and form poor arguments; and often contradict yourself. Lets see. You said:

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

No comrade, I want the government to stay the hell out of it. And I want the "people" who don't own the property to stay the hell out of it as well, unless they buy the said property.

So you don't want people living in the community to have a say what's done on private property they don't own.

Except:

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

letting people do as they please with their property, as long as it's within reason? And no, I'm not talking about a nuclear power plant, I'm talking about a NIMBY herd not letting me raze a decrepit two car garage built in 1960 on a double lot and replace it with a six unit condo building because mah historic garage!

It needs to be within reason. But you want either yourself (because you said you want government out of it), or a property owner, to determine what is reasonable. You don't want a community to determine what is "within reason", because that is what zoning is. A community deciding what is "within reason".

So, if you think that night club in a residential neighborhood is "within reason" there is goes.


You have a choice, a private property owner has absolute control to determine what is within reason. A government authority without public input does. Or the community does through the government elected representative does. Right now #3 is it. If you want #1, then so be it. But it doesn't work. Because I think that nuclear generator in my garage is within reason.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by timberline742

It's a false dichotomy. I never advocated for rent control at all. I just wanted to dispel the erroneous claims about the SF model made here. Rent control can work, but it depends on the model, and the goal. It doesn't work if you're looking to maximize economic gains, but that's hardly should be the only deciding factor. We don't have a free market. Never have. Never will. No one would stand for it. Heck, right wingers are some of the most anti free market people out there. They are all for free flow of capital (generally), goods (usually, though Trump (more a populist) was into tarrifs, but zero are into free flow of labor. Few people are.

Rent control seemed to be the topic of discussion as it is one of the touchstones of Councilwoman Wu's campaign. Anything can work if you set the goals to be what that thing actually achieves. Very few economists believe that rent control achieves its typically-stated goals.

We don't have a totally free market, but I don't think a market has to be totally free to be free. Almost everything in the real world falls on some sort of spectrum and the US certainly falls closer to a free market economy than a command economy. I think you'd be challenged to find a tinfoil-free economist or historian who didn't claim that the US follows a 'free market economy'.

I think the most ardent capitalists are probably more in favor of the free flow of labor than they are of the free flow of the limited benefits available to citizens.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Rent control seemed to be the topic of discussion as it is one of the touchstones of Councilwoman Wu's campaign. Anything can work if you set the goals to be what that thing actually achieves. Very few economists believe that rent control achieves its typically-stated goals.
.

I don't disagree with you. But anything, even the best programs, one can find bad examples to hold up to show it "not working".

And you're right re economists, but that is one of my many issues with so many of the schools of government and business in the country. They are almost 100% (outside of lecturers of practice), economists. Economics is not the only social science that should be utilized when examining effectiveness of policies. It should be one of the fields.

[WestieWhitie]

Within reason as in no, you can't build a nuclear power plant or a landfill in the middle of a residential neighborhood, which is the purpose of zoning laws in the first place. Instead what we have now is a slightly less grotesque version of "you can only build a single story single family home set back at least five miles from the street, with no more than five residents and at least five parking spaces per resident." That and a clown living on the other side of town can derail a project because he thinks a perfectly reasonable building being proposed is "out of character" as it doesn't look exactly like a triple-decker fifteen doors down. The former is fine and has its place, the latter most certainly doesn't and needs to go.

Try reading the above at least ten times and let me know if you need any further clarification.

Originally Posted by timberline742

Maybe because you aren't very articulate and form poor arguments; and often contradict yourself. Lets see. You said:




So you don't want people living in the community to have a say what's done on private property they don't own.

Except:



It needs to be within reason. But you want either yourself (because you said you want government out of it), or a property owner, to determine what is reasonable. You don't want a community to determine what is "within reason", because that is what zoning is. A community deciding what is "within reason".

So, if you think that night club in a residential neighborhood is "within reason" there is goes.


You have a choice, a private property owner has absolute control to determine what is within reason. A government authority without public input does. Or the community does through the government elected representative does. Right now #3 is it. If you want #1, then so be it. But it doesn't work. Because I think that nuclear generator in my garage is within reason.

[BostonBornMassMade]

If rent control suppresses property values so that would probably lead to lower rents via divestment and lack of rehabilitation in a given neighborhood, no?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

Within reason as in no, you can't build a nuclear power plant or a landfill in the middle of a residential neighborhood, which is the purpose of zoning laws in the first place. Instead what we have now is a slightly less grotesque version of "you can only build a single story single family home set back at least five miles from the street, with no more than five residents and at least five parking spaces per resident." That and a clown living on the other side of town can derail a project because he thinks a perfectly reasonable building being proposed is "out of character" as it doesn't look exactly like a triple-decker fifteen doors down. The former is fine and has its place, the latter most certainly doesn't and needs to go.

Try reading the above at least ten times and let me know if you need any further clarification.

I do. It doesn't answer anything. Who gets to determine what is "within reason"?

1) the landowner themselves
2) a government body elected by the community or appointed by people elected by the community to represent them
3) a government body that are not representatives selected by the community
4) other (if other, what)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

If rent control suppresses property values so that would probably lead to lower rents via divestment and lack of rehabilitation in a given neighborhood, no?

Perhaps in the short term, but many would say that the lack of investment and housing production during the rent control era has left us with what we have today. An insufficient, overpriced supply and one that is inadequate and shabby at that.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Perhaps in the short term, but many would say that the lack of investment and housing production during the rent control era has left us with what we have today. An insufficient, overpriced supply and one that is inadequate and shabby at that.

But had we never removed rent control it would have remained cheap, right? Like how did it effects Boston overall. Some cities never got rid of it.