Boardwalk and Park Place
Housing markets are cyclical. This suggests that a bust is coming; we just can’t predict when. Until then we endure $400,000 reclaimed telephone booths masquerading as townhomes. We label such things “affordable”?
Just mention the “A” word, or “density,” and the NIMBY army appears, armed to the teeth with petitions, letters, protest marches, fallen tree campaigns, and the like. Numerous “arguments” against “affordable” or “attainable” homes have been marshaled; a common one once was, “It will lower my property values.” While that has been proven specious, it might nevertheless be interesting to see if any NIMBY folks you know have protested their property taxes (saying their valuations were too high).
The fulcrum du jour seems now to be, “My view will be ruined.” My? How do we say any “view” is something to be owned? Do we truly believe we can extend our personal or political sovereignty to Mount Meeker or any point or vista between Longmont and there? I know I can’t. Just look at your title insurance policy or your lease, and you’ll know I’m right.
Until sense prevails and people stop believing they have a vested interest in everything they can touch, we will be bombarded with the terms of “no”: impact, affect, might disturb. I might disturb you, too, but that is likely to be your reaction, not my intent or practice.
While we gaze at that view, do we understand that it is only temporary, especially as climate change ravages more locations? I understand quality of life. But I also realize that the concept cannot work as a zero-sum game. Open access to a place to live and to work is more important than most any amenity for one or a few. I also appreciate a live-work-play framework for an urban environment. But enforcing our will on a distant exurban or rural or wilderness vista? Good luck with that.
What comes to mind is that residents of this and many other places have only exclusivity in mind for their leisure. What that usually leads to is called gentrification. Once that sets in, even the nouveau riche and imaginary 1%-ers won’t like it. I’ve seen what happens in places like Parker, Colorado; and Baltimore, Maryland.
The result is a sterile, tasteless gaggle of cocoons accessible only to the few who want their way. And never mind the rest of us. Sometimes when I observe nature I think of honeybees, who cooperate in everything. A hive is accessible to all; in fact, it is vital to the survival of the colony swarm. Would that we humans could approximate imitating that kind of approach.
I’ve often read and heard a desire for a “walkable” environment. Davis, California, comes close to achieving that. But absent a lottery system for license plates around here I can’t see a chance of such a setup. The resulting revolt wouldn’t be pretty.
I hear and read requests for concrete ideas for a solution to our housing crisis. Here’s one. The city, having suggested reduced permitting costs and perhaps even discounted water tap fees, might accumulate these discounts and incentives, plus tracts of land, zoned residential, or degraded, or temporarily blighted, or (I hate to say this, but I believe it will happen eventually anyway as development in town meets unwavering opposition) some parts of the open space inventory. Total the economic value of these things and conduct a yearly auction. Immediate advantage should be afforded to attainable housing projects of almost any reasonable size or density. Allow other development, market rate or not, to proceed as it tries to do today. Nobody is forced to participate.
This subsidy plan could help reduce costs. The land portion could be fee-simple or aimed at a ground lease. Throw in special-purpose credit programs arranged and perhaps underwritten by the city. Even employer assistance might be added from a blind group, so that no favoritism is evident.
This proposal might be more systematic and proactive than current practices. I doubt it would engender more of a “beauty contest” than existing procedures and preferences.
There is urgency in the conversation now, and most of the rhetoric (including mine) has become razor-sharp. It is time for a targeted approach.