Graybeard Outdoors banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
I guess I have to be more to the point. Seattle has proposed rezoning all property currently zoned only for single family homes to low density residential. This would allow current homeowners to legally divide their home into duplex or convert a garage or basement to an ADU. They could also knock down a house and build a dedicated duplex or triplex.


How is this proposal "The end of private property" or "communism"?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,776 Posts
I don't know about Seattle, but around here, neighborhoods with duplexes are obviously more run down and less well maintained than single family residence neighborhoods. Here, a switch that allows duplexes in a neighborhood would likely drop property values significantly. Any rezoning changes the expectations of the people who bought property there, so I'd expect a change like that to upset a few people, and depending on the details, maybe a lot of people. In my area there was practically rioting when the city proposed changing zoning in an area that would have allowed more commercial expansion along the main highway. It didn't happen, so the adjacent municipality is thriving while my town retains its bedroom community feel and loses business. I thought the commercial expansion would be a good thing, but I was vastly outnumbered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
Rezoning always has winners and losers. No doubt some people will not like any changes that lead to more people per square mile.

As to the addition of multi-family housing decreasing properity values, it really depends on how it is done. There are plenty of areas by me that are mostly multi family with lots of townhouses and condos (3-4 units per building) that are very well kept up and units sell for more than my single-family house that is 2 miles away. It really depends on how the development is done and more importantly the ratio of owners to renters.


What it comes down to is this. Seattle doesn't have any more room for their increasing population. To add people they have to increase population density.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,510 Posts
in this part of the world, apartments = slum, thieves, criminals, dopeheads, gangs, etc.


there are some down the road here less than 10 years old, and look as if they're 50.
if i hadn't seen 'em built there's no way i'd ever have known.
that, and the gummint houses built less than 10 years ago.
a lot of those need bulldozing instead of repairs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
Ranger99 said:
in this part of the world, apartments = slum, thieves, criminals, dopeheads, gangs, etc.
What part of the world is that?


I'm in the Portland area. There are apartments that match your description here too. I can't count how many times people on my UPS route complained that I "knocked like the police". There are other areas that they can't put up condos fast enough even though they are selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars each.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,510 Posts
JSH1 said:
Ranger99 said:
in this part of the world, apartments = slum, thieves, criminals, dopeheads, gangs, etc.

What part of the world is that?

southeast dallas county, but it's applicable to the whole metroplex area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
I suspect Seattle may also try something else they are doing in Portland. The Seattle commissioner said something to the effect "we have to give up the dream of everyone having a house on a 5000 sq ft lot. I'm sure that is the standard size zone lot in Seattle just like it was in Portland for decades. We had lots of areas zoned R5 or R7 had a maximum density of one house per 5000 or 7000 sq ft respectively. More recently Portland has allowed these lots to be broken up into 25 x 100 foot or 34 x 100 foot lots with a house on each. It is really common in areas of North Portland I looked for houses to see a developer buy an old house, demolish it and then build 3 "skinny houses". We also have lot of "flag lots" where people have subdivided what used to be a back yard and built a new house. That new lot and house is only connected to the road by the driveway.


Skinny Homes: http://www.huduser.org/portal/casestudies/study_101711_1.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,461 Posts
JSH1, if you can't make the connect between limiting people to how much property they can own, how much land they can own, and telling business's how much to pay their employees, to communism, I suggest a trip back to civics class 101. This time, try and find a teacher that wasn't brainwashed by a lib college in the last 40-50 years. What's next, limiting the amount of children a woman can have? (China come to mind!) Actually, I'm not to far away from that idea! Welfare moms with 6 kids by unknown number of fathers might not be a bad idea! Make them get their tubes tied after the second one, then they can pretend to breed all they want, and no more unwanted pups! gypsyman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,293 Posts
JSH1 said:
I suspect Seattle may also try something else they are doing in Portland. The Seattle commissioner said something to the effect "we have to give up the dream of everyone having a house on a 5000 sq ft lot. I'm sure that is the standard size zone lot in Seattle just like it was in Portland for decades. We had lots of areas zoned R5 or R7 had a maximum density of one house per 5000 or 7000 sq ft respectively. More recently Portland has allowed these lots to be broken up into 25 x 100 foot or 34 x 100 foot lots with a house on each. It is really common in areas of North Portland I looked for houses to see a developer buy an old house, demolish it and then build 3 "skinny houses". We also have lot of "flag lots" where people have subdivided what used to be a back yard and built a new house. That new lot and house is only connected to the road by the driveway.


Skinny Homes: http://www.huduser.org/portal/casestudies/study_101711_1.html
This is why I describe our cities as overpriced future slums.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
gypsyman said:
JSH1, if you can't make the connect between limiting people to how much property they can own, how much land they can own, and telling business's how much to pay their employees, to communism, I suggest a trip back to civics class 101. This time, try and find a teacher that wasn't brainwashed by a lib college in the last 40-50 years. What's next, limiting the amount of children a woman can have? (China come to mind!) Actually, I'm not to far away from that idea! Welfare moms with 6 kids by unknown number of fathers might not be a bad idea! Make them get their tubes tied after the second one, then they can pretend to breed all they want, and no more unwanted pups! gypsyman

No one is putting restrictions on how much property a person can own. They have proposed rezoning land to allow more uses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,068 Posts
The communism part will soon follow as the government will subsidize the construction of the hovels and the rent for the inhabitants. And the communist continuum will assure the big cities remain a liberal bastion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,142 Posts
magooch said:
The communism part will soon follow as the government will subsidize the construction of the hovels and the rent for the inhabitants. And the communist continuum will assure the big cities remain a liberal bastion.
Can't grasp the logic here. City says I can create smaller (or larger) lots with my land and that constitutes a "taking? I can do more than I could before (ie, they loosened the rules on subdivisions) and that means they took my property? Can't see how.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
gene_225 said:
magooch said:
The communism part will soon follow as the government will subsidize the construction of the hovels and the rent for the inhabitants. And the communist continuum will assure the big cities remain a liberal bastion.
Can't grasp the logic here. City says I can create smaller (or larger) lots with my land and that constitutes a "taking? I can do more than I could before (ie, they loosened the rules on subdivisions) and that means they took my property? Can't see how.
So I watched the video. It is interesting because I've had to work with people like the guys who do the voiceover. They draw absurd conclusions from partial information that has been erroneously interpreted.
There is no "ban" on single family home zoning. There is a lifting of this zoning code. This permits more/different activity to occur within the zoned area than just single family zoning. He11, if anything, enforcing single family zoning on a neighborhood amounts to a greater "taking" of rights than what is being proposed in the original story about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
gypsyman said:
JSH1, if you can't make the connect between limiting people to how much property they can own, how much land they can own, and telling business's how much to pay their employees, to communism, I suggest a trip back to civics class 101. This time, try and find a teacher that wasn't brainwashed by a lib college in the last 40-50 years. What's next, limiting the amount of children a woman can have? (China come to mind!) Actually, I'm not to far away from that idea! Welfare moms with 6 kids by unknown number of fathers might not be a bad idea! Make them get their tubes tied after the second one, then they can pretend to breed all they want, and no more unwanted pups! gypsyman
Please explain how this proposal places restrictions on private property ownership.
-added- Please use info from the original proposal as drafted for the City of Seattle, NOT the comments or opinions of the person(s) who created the video linked in the OP.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top