Substandard Housing

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

. . . I'll refer people to to the post that started this discussion. The statement there was that zoning is evil, and that everyone should have the freedom to develop whatever they want, wherever they want. I pointed out why this is not a good idea.

You will not find any competent developer, or any developer with even half a brain, who thinks that PLANNING is evil. No one wants a community where anyone can build anything you want anywhere. Cities have to be designed in order to function well and be good places to live. Developers have a vital stake in the quality of that design.



You say developers are inordinately involved in local politics, too close to the planners? Well, what do you expect? Developers and municipalities and planners are PARTNERS and COLLEAGUES. Of course they are close. It would be bad for communities if they were not. Great communities are born out of the cooperation and common vision among developrs, municipalities, planners.

The post which said that zoning was evil, was probably referring to the kind of zoning which existed universally in mid-20th century America, which forbade any kind of density, which separated offices from residences, which created the suburban horror which we all grew up with. THAT kind of zoning IS evil.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, you missed the main point. A developer will make far more money by making a BETTER community, than by degrading a community. The magic of a great community is what creates VALUE in real estate, so profits for a developer. So interests of developers and planners and communities are fundamentally aligned, if participants are able to see things in an enlightened way. Nothing wrong with "being in it for the money", if you make your money by creating something of value for others -- that's how the market economy works.

And what's wrong with "fitting more in"? It's bizarre mid 20th century flawed thinking, to think that low density is somehow automatically better -- it's not. American cities were almost destroyed with this stupidity. The best communities have enough density to create active, city life, contact with neighbors -- in short, community. More density helps that. Density articulated with great green space, density oriented to transport hubs so that people aren't forced to use cars.

You know, the problem I have with development is when open spaces, beautiful open spaces, which can be enjoyed by all, get turned into private homes for a few. In my home state, where I lived and boated for 50 years, countless wooded coves, bays, and points of land surrounded by the sea were developed, and where once was a gorgeous nature spot is now houses, lawns, lawnmowers. The beauty of the spot was destroyed. Even the home owners who bought there lost it. The natural beauty of the place which they saw and made them want to buy there, and "own", was gone forever once the place was developed.

Now we get to zoning. Those places were not protected by zoning because the property owners wanted the income from selling the land more than they wanted to keep the untouched site and in the local communities they had influence over the zoning committees. The State bought some of it as parkland but not enough money was found to protect everyplace.

So the bottom line is that much of the beauty of the region that I enjoyed will never be enjoyed by my grandchildren in the same way and one thing which really irks me: so many of the lovely waterfront homes, for which the tall fir trees and pristine beaches were sacrificed, are owned by out of state residents who come there 2-3 weeks a year. The house is, to me, a blight, and sits empty most of the time. A shame which disgusts me.

But I am sure the developer made a fine profit. In my mind they took something of beauty from all of us, and put in into their pocket.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You will not find any competent developer, or any developer with even half a brain, who thinks that PLANNING is evil. No one wants a community where anyone can build anything you want anywhere. Cities have to be designed in order to function well and be good places to live. Developers have a vital stake in the quality of that design.

You say developers are inordinately involved in local politics, too close to the planners? Well, what do you expect? Developers and municipalities and planners are PARTNERS and COLLEAGUES. Of course they are close. It would be bad for communities if they were not. Great communities are born out of the cooperation and common vision among developrs, municipalities, planners.

The post which said that zoning was evil, was probably referring to the kind of zoning which existed universally in mid-20th century America, which forbade any kind of density, which separated offices from residences, which created the suburban horror which we all grew up with. THAT kind of zoning IS evil.

Sometimes people are so involved in a process that they can't see or admit it's flaws.

Developers aren't necessarily looking out for the good of the community. Sometimes they are. More often, they're doing enough to get their project approved. The competence of developers SHOULD be measured by the good they do for communities. Sometimes they do OK in this regard. But they are ALWAYS judged by their commercial success. Unfortunately, that means that sometimes the lady with the older house that's in the way of a developer's ambitions has to go. Sometimes they want to gloss over the parking requirements. If you're pretending that this never happens, there are many examples that prove it to be the case. Real Estate and Finance are two industries that often worship money over societal benefit.

This isn't always a problem. There is often mutual good in development activity. Sometimes there's a hidden cost in terms of encroaching public assets. I would never count on a developer to tell the whole truth, as we find out the half-truths AFTER the development gets approved or completed.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And when developers, politicians, and the zoning commission start getting chummy, watch out. Human nature is what it is. Which is why we need checks and balances.

I'm not saying all developers are bad. I'm just saying we do need zoning, we do need planning commissions, and we do need alert community members to help ensure the public good is protected. Sometimes it's nobody's fault. It's just that nobody saw the big picture before a beautiful area of nature got developed and looks just like everywhere else. I'm glad someone had the foresight to create national parks.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I understand it completely, I just think it is a slur.

It is, so what? Am i suppose to be sorry for describing boat scum as boat scum?

[smj]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

It is, so what? Am i suppose to be sorry for describing boat scum as boat scum?

Feels as if you have to denigrate others to feel superior. If you have a problem with how others keep their boats why don’t you nut up and discuss this with the supposed “boat scum” rather than spread this on CF?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by smj

Feels as if you have to denigrate others to feel superior. If you have a problem with how others keep their boats why don’t you nut up and discuss this with the supposed “boat scum” rather than spread this on CF?

Are you suggesting the scum can be improved with just a talking to so they realized they are scum?

Btw I don't need to denigrate scum to feel better than them, they did that all on their own. For the most part they could easily move up from scum status as mostly all they would need to do is clean the trash off their boat.

Till then scum are scum and its not my fault.

[smj]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Are you suggesting the scum can be improved with just a talking to so they realized they are scum?



Btw I don't need to denigrate scum to feel better than them, they did that all on their own. For the most part they could easily move up from scum status as mostly all they would need to do is clean the trash off their boat.



Till then scum are scum and its not my fault.

In my opinion there’s only one thing that’s sub standard on this thread and that’s your attitude.
Like I said before, you found your way in here and if you don’t like it I’m sure you can find your way out.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by smj

In my opinion there’s only one thing that’s sub standard on this thread and that’s your attitude.
Like I said before, you found your way in here and if you don’t like it I’m sure you can find your way out.

Really, is that suppose to upset me? I am positive my attitude on boat scum is very standard. Other than you I haven't read much pro-scum posts.

[smj]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Really, is that suppose to upset me? I am positive my attitude on boat scum is very standard.

Cool, then why don’t you post it on the morning net, or better yet copy and paste your CF reactions and put them on the Boot Key Harbors Facebook page? Maybe that will get your message out to the people that need your guidance.
Just trying to be helpful so we can change the harbor to better suit your tastes.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by smj

Cool, then why don’t you post it on the morning net, or better yet copy and paste your CF reactions and put them on the Boot Key Harbors Facebook page? Maybe that will get your message out to the people that need your guidance.
Just trying to be helpful so we can change the harbor to better suit your tastes.

Actually I am done engaging with you.

[smj]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Actually I am done engaging with you.

Just trying to help you reach your target audience.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You are making declarative statements not in evidence. How many evil planners are there, vs how many evil developers and politicians? Let's see some numbers. They all seem to think they're in it to do good.

San Fransico's housing troubles are largely planning related. UK's council housing shortage has some of the same problems. NYC has issues related to rent control. These are all attempts by planners to solve a perceived problem but in reality punish developers for trying to solve the problem.

Not necessarily "evil" but certainly some misguided planners.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by wingssail

You know, the problem I have with development is when open spaces, beautiful open spaces, which can be enjoyed by all, get turned into private homes for a few. In my home state, where I lived and boated for 50 years, countless wooded coves, bays, and points of land surrounded by the sea were developed, and where once was a gorgeous nature spot is now houses, lawns, lawnmowers. The beauty of the spot was destroyed. Even the home owners who bought there lost it. The natural beauty of the place which they saw and made them want to buy there, and "own", was gone forever once the place was developed.

This is the old...I was here first and did my development but now I don't want you to develop your land because it will impact me...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by wingssail

You know, the problem I have with development is when open spaces, beautiful open spaces, which can be enjoyed by all, get turned into private homes for a few. In my home state, where I lived and boated for 50 years, countless wooded coves, bays, and points of land surrounded by the sea were developed, and where once was a gorgeous nature spot is now houses, lawns, lawnmowers. The beauty of the spot was destroyed. Even the home owners who bought there lost it. The natural beauty of the place which they saw and made them want to buy there, and "own", was gone forever once the place was developed.

Now we get to zoning. Those places were not protected by zoning because the property owners wanted the income from selling the land more than they wanted to keep the untouched site and in the local communities they had influence over the zoning committees. The State bought some of it as parkland but not enough money was found to protect everyplace.

So the bottom line is that much of the beauty of the region that I enjoyed will never be enjoyed by my grandchildren in the same way and one thing which really irks me: so many of the lovely waterfront homes, for which the tall fir trees and pristine beaches were sacrificed, are owned by out of state residents who come there 2-3 weeks a year. The house is, to me, a blight, and sits empty most of the time. A shame which disgusts me.

But I am sure the developer made a fine profit. In my mind they took something of beauty from all of us, and put in into their pocket.

That's not the fault of developers, that's bad planning. The essence of city planning is to configure and allocate different kinds of space in a community for purposes which enhance the community. Preserving green spaces and wild nature is at the very core of that.



Note that the type of zoning which we had until recently, and still have in some places, makes this worse -- by forcing developers to build low density housing, sprawl is required. The better kind of community has high density around transport hubs and leaves green spaces green, and leaves plenty of wildnerness wild. This is planning.


Sprawl is evil -- it makes bad communities and destroys open spaces and natural areas. Developers don't want sprawl anymore than anyone else does -- it requires them to buy large quantities of land. The answer to it is not only to allow, but to encourage, or even REQUIRE, high density housing, and leave most land in its green and open state.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

You can't sell a medical degree to an associate, so FMV in the sense of a willing seller and willing buyer doesn't apply. The degree itself is not what you are selling to make an income. It is the services associated with the degree. If you don't sell those services, there is no associated income. Of course, not too many people who go thru the trouble of getting an MD don't sell those services for the exact same reason...you can make a 1000 times more doing that rather than selling baskets.

You just proved my point.

If I do not sell my house I should not be hit with FMV on that unsold house. You keep forgetting "willing seller" part of the FMV definition.