Current Events > Minneapolis bans single family housing. Balrogo moves to Minneapolis

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-2040-comprehensive-plan-likely-to-pass-council-members-say/500729901/

A controversial plan to make Minneapolis a more densely populated city has enough support on the City Council to pass when it comes to a vote next month, council members said this week.

Six council members reached by the Star Tribune indicated they would vote in support of the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan on Dec. 7. It needs nine votes to pass, but even Council Member Linea Palmisano, who opposes the 2040 plan, believes it will move forward.

On Friday, Council President Lisa Bender said she was very confident the plan would be approved.

I actually think theres a lot of consensus among council members and a lot of excitement about the general direction the plan is taking us, she said.

The 2040 plan would usher in citywide upzoning, allowing triplexes in neighborhoods currently reserved for single-family homes, and denser development along transit corridors. Since the plan became public this spring, impassioned residents have packed public hearings, planted lawn signs and sent thousands of online comments to express how they feel the plan would affect their neighborhoods.

This summer, city planners scaled back the density goals, which originally called for allowing fourplexes citywide. Before approving the revised plan, council members said they first want to introduce changes that would strengthen the goals to increase density, mitigate climate change and reduce racial disparities. They will propose the amendments at a committee meeting Nov. 26 and will meet two days before the vote to finalize any changes.

pretty great plan, there's no reason for such a thing as single family zoning to exist.
---

My home my choice
---

spudger posted...

My home my choice

exactly
---

As long as they aren't taking people's existing property I'm fine with a major city enforcing that. I feel most major cities on the west coast don't have room for single family homes haha

if this increases housing i'm all for it.
---

they didnt actually ban single family houses, just zoning that is exclusively for single family unattached housing my topic title is inflammatory to get attention
---

we're all inflammatory.
---

One of the reasons to buy a home is so you don't have to share a wall with people.
---

not if the Nimbys got anything to say about it
---

Sounds terrible

I dont get why people want to live in densely packed cities like that. Give me space and a yard
---

because they can't afford it, insightful user TheGoldenEel
---

rikasa posted...

because they can't afford it, insightful user TheGoldenEel

Densely packed cities are the expensive ones

This is just a way to lower costs from ridiculously expensive to really expensive

Move to a smaller city and stop paying more for less
---

are you really moving to minnesota rog0
---

Bad idea since the dividing walls of multifamily dwellings are likely to be under-designed. One shouldn't be forced to either live outside the city or be able to hear their next door neighbors going at it like jackrabbits when trying to sleep.
---

People....are excited about this?
---

TheGoldenEel posted...

rikasa posted...

because they can't afford it, insightful user TheGoldenEel

This is just a way to lower costs

well gadd damn
he does it again
---

Balrog0 posted...

they didnt actually ban single family houses, just zoning that is exclusively for single family unattached housing my topic title is inflammatory to get attention

that sort of thing is defacto banned in most cities because the cost is unreasonable.

An unattached single family house in New York--well doesn't exist in NYC but in the surrounding boroughs you're looking at around a million dollars just for an empty plot of land and god knows what for the house which is also going to be fucking tiny.

You're like a god of money if you live in a place like Rochester.
---

I'd be good with removing zoning laws altogether.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

I'd be good with removing zoning laws altogether.

Hey I'm going to open up this Jackhammer testing facility next to your house. You cool with that? No? Too bad.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

You're like a god of money if you live in a place like Rochester.

Rochesterian here: there's a reason they don't!
---

I don't really understand why higher density is the goal, that will just increase crime
---

Balrog0 posted...

pretty great plan, there's no reason for such a thing as single family zoning to exist.

single family homes house single family taxpayers. Won't changing the zoning to cram more people into an area only deflate property value and drive away wealthy homeowners?
---

eston posted...

I don't really understand why higher density is the goal, that will just increase crime

It's cold and they need the body heat
---

s0nicfan posted...

Balrog0 posted...

pretty great plan, there's no reason for such a thing as single family zoning to exist.

single family homes house single family taxpayers. Won't changing the zoning to cram more people into an area only deflate property value and drive away wealthy homeowners?

Pretty sure this is just for new zones. They're not tearing down existing houses.

It's also only for Minneapolis. Not the whole state.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Balrog0 posted...

pretty great plan, there's no reason for such a thing as single family zoning to exist.

single family homes house single family taxpayers. Won't changing the zoning to cram more people into an area only deflate property value and drive away wealthy homeowners?

Pretty sure this is just for new zones. They're not tearing down existing houses.

It's also only for Minneapolis. Not the whole state.

They're getting rid of the zoning for single family only areas. Obviously that doesn't mean tearing down houses, but it DOES mean building apartment and duplex complexes right next to existing neighborhoods, since most of those zoned areas aren't likely fully built out.
---

No family should want to raise their children in cities. Its worse for pets as well.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

I'd be good with removing zoning laws altogether.

Hey I'm going to open up this Jackhammer testing facility next to your house. You cool with that? No? Too bad.

That could potentially be dealt with through applying or adjusting laws related to disturbing the peace.

Zoning laws keep certain real estate overpriced by limiting supply.
---

andel posted...

are you really moving to minnesota rog0

naw I just talk about this all the time, I really do think its an excellent policy though
---

Meanwhile I'm in my 2460 sq ft home with an acre.

People that want to live like this baffle me
---

s0nicfan posted...

Balrog0 posted...

pretty great plan, there's no reason for such a thing as single family zoning to exist.

single family homes house single family taxpayers. Won't changing the zoning to cram more people into an area only deflate property value and drive away wealthy homeowners?

I don't think this makes sense if you think about it. Even if we did drive away wealthy home owners, the mechanism through which they're being chased out is that they're being outbid by people who are developing apartments to house many more people. So how would property values decrease?

Also, this is just changing SFH to a minimum of triplexes being allowed. It's not like high rises are allowed every where
---

tennisdude818 posted...

That could potentially be dealt with through applying or adjusting laws related to disturbing the peace.

Zoning laws keep certain real estate overpriced by limiting supply.

noise ordinances aren't even a zoning thing, so yeah
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Balrog0 posted...

pretty great plan, there's no reason for such a thing as single family zoning to exist.

single family homes house single family taxpayers. Won't changing the zoning to cram more people into an area only deflate property value and drive away wealthy homeowners?

I don't think this makes sense if you think about it. Even if we did drive away wealthy home owners, the mechanism through which they're being chased out is that they're being outbid by people who are developing apartments to house many more people. So how would property values decrease?

Also, this is just changing SFH to a minimum of triplexes being allowed. It's not like high rises are allowed every where

Wealthy homeowners are being replaced by rental units. That depreciates property value in an area because the people renting have less money than the people who own, which decreases the average income in an area and statistically leads to higher crime. That isn't really something up for debate... that's just what happens.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Wealthy homeowners are being replaced by rental units. That depreciates property value in an area because the people renting have less money than the people who own, which decreases the average income in an area and statistically leads to higher crime. That isn't really something up for debate... that's just what happens.

It... very much is open to debate.

https://www.trulia.com/research/low-income-housing/
---

and thats specifically low income, not market rate
---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Wealthy homeowners are being replaced by rental units. That depreciates property value in an area because the people renting have less money than the people who own, which decreases the average income in an area and statistically leads to higher crime. That isn't really something up for debate... that's just what happens.

It... very much is open to debate.

https://www.trulia.com/research/low-income-housing/

That looks at, literally, the 20 most expensive neighborhoods in the country and determines that a small amount of low income housing over a decade didn't significantly impact property value. That is nowhere near the same as intentionally increasing the population density of your average town.

Other studies on regular neighborhoods still found that it hurts property value:
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/affordable-housing-good-neighborhood

On the flip side, wealthier neighborhoods didnt see affordable housing as an attractive amenity. And that impact rippled through the area years after construction started.

In the high-income areas, you saw a strong housing price drop very locally, and then it radiated outward over time, McQuade says. The price effects remain even after 10 years, Diamond adds.

Furthermore, by aggregating the housing price changes in transactions following a new development, Diamond and McQuade were able to determine how much a project was worth to the surrounding neighborhood in other words, how much more people were willing to pay to live close to the site, or conversely, how much theyd be willing to lose to move away from it. Their analysis revealed that an LIHTC project in a low-income region was worth about $116 million to the immediate surrounding neighborhood. In higher-income areas, the new building led to a loss of approximately $17 million.

And here you can see that rental properties versus home ownership have a direct impact on crime rates, which is another factor that impacts property value:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23949141_Rental_Housing_and_Crime_The_Role_of_Property_Ownership_and_Management
---

s0nicfan posted...

That looks at, literally, the 20 most expensive neighborhoods in the country and determines that a small amount of low income housing over a decade didn't significantly impact property value. That is nowhere near the same as intentionally increasing the population density of your average town.

Other studies on regular neighborhoods still found that it hurts property value:
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/affordable-housing-good-neighborhood

yep, there's definitely conflicting research on the issue which is why it is worth debating, however 1) this says that it has varying impacts depending on the neighborhood -- lots of low income areas are SFH, too. So, it doesn't say that 'regular' neighborhoods are negatively impacted and isn't exactly a slam dunk against the policy

s0nicfan posted...

And here you can see that rental properties versus home ownership have a direct impact on crime rates, which is another factor that impacts property value:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23949141_Rental_Housing_and_Crime_The_Role_of_Property_Ownership_and_Management

and here's one about how increasing density helps SFH property values
http://www.denverrealestatewatch.com/2011/11/13/research-high-density-good-for-home-values/

Higher-density affordable housing that is well designed not only does not adversely affect property values, but may even enhance the value of existing homes in the neighborhood, according to a 2011 report by the Center for Housing Policy, the research arm of the non-profit National Housing Council.

It noted that researchers at Virginia Tech University concluded that attractively designed and landscaped higher-density units actually increased the overall value of area single-family housing.

How can something so anti-intuitive be the case?

New apartments often signal that the local economy is healthy and growing, according to the report. They also create the density needed to create more retail and other services, thereby increasing the attractiveness of the surrounding area. Finally, the residents of the new multifamily housing can bolster property values by a larger pool of potential buyers for existing owners when they decide to sell their houses.

A report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, reached a similar conclusion, after examining three decades worth of Census data.

The report by Alexander von Hoffmann analyzed housing in working communities, populated by those who earned between 60 percent and 100 percent of the area median income. Some 56 percent of the population lives in such communities.

The presence of multifamily dwellings correlated with higher home values in working communities, according to Hoffmans report. Furthermore, multifamily housing did not stop property values in working communities from growing.

One reason may be that areas with a significant quantity of apartments often are near employment, cultural, or recreational centers or major transportation routes, thus raising demand and elevating land and housing costs, the Harvard report noted.

---

Balrog0 posted...

The report by Alexander von Hoffmann analyzed housing in working communities, populated by those who earned between 60 percent and 100 percent of the area median income. Some 56 percent of the population lives in such communities.

Balrog0 posted...

One reason may be that areas with a significant quantity of apartments often are near employment, cultural, or recreational centers or major transportation routes, thus raising demand and elevating land and housing costs, the Harvard report noted.

*shrugs* well then I guess it depends on what they do with the zoning change. If they build high end apartments bought by people making close to what the homeowners do then sure, it might work. You're still not talking averages, though. There's still the issue of crime rates, but I guess that doesn't impact property value as much as I would have guessed, at least in short terms.
---

I mean if you're going to have a city you might as well build taller and try to fit as many people as possible, decreasing housing costs.

There are suburbs for people who don't like that
---