Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Search Results for parking

Market Urbanism MUsings February 3, 2017

  1. Announcement Market Urbanism and the Foundation for Economics Education are partnering on a special 6-session track focused on Market Urbanism at this Summer’s conference in Atlanta. Mark your calendars for June 15-18 (we are also going to try to plan some gatherings separate from the FEE itinerary on Sunday, the 18th). Here’s the description on FEE’s website: Wherever you live, your city uses archaic regulations to restrict what can be built, and for what purposes buildings can be used. The Urbanism, Development, and Your Neighborhood track is a joint effort by Market Urbanism and FEE to shed some light on the vast spectrum of land use and transportation regulations that suck the vibrancy out of neighborhoods, cause traffic congestion, and constrain housing supply to the point we have an affordable housing crisis in cities across the world. This track provides you with the intellectual tools you’ll need to make a case for liberty in your own backyard and bring liberty to your streets. 2. This week at Market Urbanism: New contributor “California Palms“–who is using a pen name to avoid any workplace drama from Nimbys in his home city–authored his first piece When NIMBYs Use Renters’ Health To Stop Rental Housing Stay tuned, as Davis-style development laws are starting to appear on the ballots of big cities like Los Angeles, which will vote on Measure S (or the “neighborhood integrity initiative”) in March. I want to make sure you see exactly how much more difficult your community’s land use politics will become if you mistakenly go the Davis way. Michael Hamilton How to finance a sanctuary city Many cities will maintain their sanctuary status, since a large percentage of their workforce and entrepreneurial base are undocumented….Assuming that this decision robs sanctuary cities of federal funding, liberalizing land-use regulation and selling city-owned property […]

Market Urbanism MUsings January 27, 2017

  1. This week at Market Urbanism: If Landlords Can Profit, Homes Must Be Great Investments, Right? by Emily Hamilton A childless couple might purchase a four-bedroom home in a good school district for the future, meaning that they end up over-consuming housing for their yet unborn children. If this hypothetical couple decided to rent until their children were school-age instead, they would likely be able to save and invest a substantial amount by spending less on housing in the near term. The Disconnect Between Liberal Aspirations And Liberal Housing Policy Is Killing Coastal U.S. Cities by Shane Phillips There really is something inherently flawed in the way we’ve approached housing policy for the past several decades (at least), and I would argue that it comes down to a kind of cognitive dissonance on three key issues…. 2. Announcement Market Urbanism reader Kyle Zheng alerted us to his blog TwoFiveSeven.org. It includes a “Master City” page that connects readers, in very user-friendly fashion, to just about every urban issues blog in America. There’s even a built-in feature to add any blog he may’ve missed. This site is a great resource for urbanists far and wide. 3. Where’s Scott? Scott Beyer has arrived in the San Francisco Bay Area, settling in the Merritt Park neighborhood of Oakland. His two Forbes articles this week were America’s ‘Inner City’ Problem, As Seen In One Baltimore Neighborhood and The Case For Localizing Federal Transportation Policy This underlies a longtime trend, in which states of largely rural and suburban character get more federal funding per tax dollar paid than urban ones. It is particularly pronounced for transportation funding. Scott also did a radio interview about his cross-country trip, on Sacramento’s KFBK Home Show. He appears at the 20:40 mark. 4. At the Market Urbanism Facebook Group Elizabeth Lasky wants to start a political meme: “Mothers for more housing” […]

7 Reasons To Oppose Los Angeles’ Neighborhood Integrity Initiative

[This piece was originally published on the site Better Institutions.] On March 7th, Los Angeles is going to vote on the type of city it wants to be. The vote will be over Measure S, formerly known as the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative (NII), which seeks to limit housing development in the city. Backers of the initiative claim that City Council is too beholden to developers, and that the pace of new housing and commercial development in the city is out of control. They also express concern that “mega projects” are making Los Angeles less affordable, since few new homes are being targeted at low and moderate income households.   It’s a really bad plan, but calling Measure S “bad” doesn’t go nearly far enough. It is, in fact, the Donald Trump of ballot initiatives. It’s a cynical effort to co-opt a legitimate sense of frustration—frustration felt by those who haven’t shared in the gains of an increasingly bifurcated society—and to use that rage and desperation for purely selfish purposes. It invites us to vent our frustrations and, in so doing, to further enrich those who helped to engineer our ill fortune. And as with Trump, a Measure S victory will roll back the clock on years of steady progress. Since I think there are a lot of folks out there who genuinely haven’t made up their minds about the initiative, or aren’t yet familiar with it, I’d like to summarize some of the most important reasons to oppose it when it comes time to vote this March. 1. IT WILL MEAN FEWER AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. The Coalition to Preserve LA, which is backing the initiative, is turning this into a referendum on housing development in Los Angeles. They’re arguing that new homes have “wiped out thousands of […]

How Lexington Can Expand Affordable Housing (Without Touching the UGB)

  Lexington, Kentucky is a wonderful place, and that’s getting to be a problem. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the city: its urban amenities, thriving information economy, and unique local culture have brought in throngs of economic migrants from locales as exotic as Appalachia, Mexico, and the Rust Belt. The problem, rather, is that the city isn’t zoned to support this newfound attention. Over the past five years, the city has grown by an estimated 18,000 residents, putting Lexington’s population at approximately 314,488. Lexington has nearly tripled in size since 1970 and the trend shows no signs of stopping, with an estimated 100,000 new residents arriving by 2030. Despite this growth, new development has largely lagged behind: despite the boom in new residents, the city has only permitted the construction of 6,021 new housing units over the past five years—not an awful ratio when compared to a San Francisco, but still putting us firmly on the path toward shortages. The lion’s share of this new development has taken the form of new single-family houses on the periphery of town. Create your own infographics. Sources: ACS/Census Bureau   At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with single-family housing on the periphery of town. Yet in the case of Lexington, it’s suspect as a sustainable source of affordable housing. Lexington was the first American city to adopt an urban growth boundary (UGB), a now popular land-use regulation that limits outward urban expansion. As originally conceived, the UGB program isn’t such a bad idea: the city would simultaneously preserve nearby farmland and natural areas (especially important for Lexington, given our idyllic surrounding countryside) while easing restrictions on infill development. Create your own infographics. Source: Census Bureau   The trouble with Lexington is that the city has undertaken […]

Market Urbanism MUsings, December 30, 2016

1. This week at Market Urbanism: Are “Charter Cities” a Solution? by Sandy Ikeda What makes a charter city attractive is the prospect of rapidly instituting rules consistent with economic development in an area that might otherwise take decades to do so, offering almost overnight the chance of a better life for the citizens of an impoverished country for whom long-distance immigration is too costly. While I find myself largely sympathetic to the concept, two things bother me about it. 2. Where’s Scott? Scott Beyer is spending the holidays in his hometown of Charlottesville, VA, and will fly back Monday to Los Angeles. His Forbes article this week was titled Yimby Nation: The Rise of America’s Pro-Housing Political Coalition The grassroots activist side sits more on the West Coast, germinating among a colorful hodgepodge of non-profits, informal civic groups, beer hall meetups, blogging and social media platforms, and firebrand individuals, from beachtown gadflies to downtown flâneurs. 3. At the Market Urbanism Facebook Group: Nga Pham is “being accused of trying to build a ‘mini-hotel that will be ‘airbnb’ or causing a lot of noise and parking problems. or letting people live in the closets. If anyone wants to help with actively voicing Yimby sentiments and is from Berkeley pm me.” Malia Kristina asks for “Recommendations for articles on the future governance challenges of megacities?” Robert Stark interviews Charles Marohn from Strong Towns Roger Valdez wrote: What is to be Done?: Taking on 2017 and Beyond via David N. Welton, “Interesting and specific example of the market being at odds with “urbanism””: Homebuilders say ‘no’ to Redmond code changes via Anthony Ling: Urban myth busting: New rental housing and median-income households via Elizabeth Lasky: Should there be carbon penalties for ‘no growth’ communities? via Krishan Madan: ‘Morally criminal’ efforts by Pioneer Square developer thwarted [Seattle] via Jon […]

Market Urbanism MUsings, December 16, 2016

  1. This week at Market Urbansim: Same Old Story: How Planners Continue to Drive Gentrification by Nolan Gray Planners, like all professions, have their own useful mythologies. A popular one goes something like this: “Many years ago, us planners did naughty things. We pushed around the poor, demolished minority neighborhoods, and forced gentrification. But that’s all over today. Now we protect the disadvantaged against the vagaries of the unrestrained market.” Urban Mass Transit Out Of Suburban Sprawl by Sandy Ikeda The trick is to find “rules of the game” – such as private property and norms of reciprocity – that over time generate consequences that correct errors and promote rather than prevent social cooperation. While economists and social theorists since Adam Smith have understood this, many in the urban-planning profession don’t seem to have fully grasped the message. 2. Where’s Scott? Scott Beyer is in Los Angeles, and this weekend will visit Anaheim, Huntington Beach and other previously unexplored parts of Orange County. His two Forbes articles this week were Oklahoma City’s MAPS Is A Model Public Works Program and Oakland’s Warehouse Tragedy Resulted From Too Little Housing Construction As long as this mismatch remains–thousands of new people per year, only hundreds of new units–many Oaklandites will live in substandard housing, from dangerous warehouses to overcrowded apartments to poorly-maintained rent-controlled units that tenants are scared to leave. 3. At the Market Urbanism Facebook Group: Donald Shoup, Quan Yuan, and Xin Jiang wrote: Charging for Parking to Finance Public Services Anthony Ling translated Mark Lutter‘s article, Instead Of Temporary Camps, We Should Let Refugees Build Their Own Flourishing Cities to Portuguese John Morris asks, “How might the still emerging local and state government pension crisis affect land use? Zoning clearly reduces potential revenues from taxable property. Could strained budgets and insolvency make pensioners and […]

Market Urbanism MUsings November 25, 2016

  1. This week at Market Urbansim: The Urban Origins of Liberty by Sandy Ikeda Only in the commercial society of the cities, which then as today attracted the ambitious, the talented, and the misfit, did liberty have a real meaning and substance. Only if you can “vote with your feet,” leave the manor or village to pursue your dreams, or simply travel (and have a reason to travel) from place to place, are you really free. One Reason Why Subsidies Aren’t the (Only) Solution by Michael Lewyn The policy paper points out, however, that HUD’s existing project-based and housing choice vouchers could serve more families if the per-unit cost wasn’t pushed higher and higher by rents rising in the face of barriers to new development.” 2. MU Elsewhere Just another reminder to catch Market Urbanist Emily Hamilton debate Cato’s Randal O’Toole on November 29th in Washington, DC, on the question “Should Urban Areas Grow Up or Out to Keep Housing Affordable” (event details) 3. Where’s Scott? Scott Beyer spent his second week in Los Angeles. He wants before leaving on December 11th to organize a dinner party for the area’s many pro-housing activists, so PM him if you’re interested or know someone who is. He published two articles this week–a 5k-word white paper for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism about San Antonio (pg. 40 of this pdf); and one for Forbes titled Globalism — Not Nativism — Is What Made America’s Cities Great Along with the 1 million undocumented immigrants in L.A. County, there is an estimated 500,000 in New York City, 500,000 in the Bay Area, 400,000 in the Houston area, and 260,000 in greater Miami. Impose mass deportation upon these—some of the nation’s most economically dynamic—metros, and the federal government would be ripping out huge portions of their workforce, customer base and entrepreneurial ecosystem. Scott […]

Market Urbanism MUsings October 28, 2016

  1. This week at Market Urbansim: ‘Who better to determine local needs than property owners and concerned citizens themselves?’ by Michael Hamilton Instead, land-use regulations can, and often are, used as cudgels against disfavored groups or individuals. Issues of personal taste—yard size, material choices, building design, amount of parking—can be weaponized when turned into regulatory requirements and greatly decrease a plot of land’s value. Donald Shoup Takes San Francisco by Sandy ikeda As I said before, to do market pricing correctly, well, you need markets. What the San Francisco approach does is to try to mimic what it is thought a private market would do. But the standard of “at least one empty parking spot” is arbitrary – like mandating that every ice-cream cone have two and only two scoops of ice cream. The Shoup-inspired San Francisco solution is I think a step in the right direction, but only a step. Episode 05 of the Market Urbanism Podcast with Nolan Gray: Samuel Zipp and Nathan Storring on Vital Little Plans This week on the Market Urbanism Podcast, I chat with Samuel Zipp and Nathan Storring on the wonderful new volume Vital Little Plans: The Short Works of Jane Jacobs. From Jacobs’ McCarthy-era defense of unorthodox thinking to snippets of her unpublished history of humanity, the book is a must-read for fans of Jane Jacobs. In this podcast, we discuss some of the broader themes of Jacobs’ thinking America’s Progressive Developers–Silver Ventures by Scott Beyer Foremost among these is the Pearl Brewery, a 22-acre former industrial site that is north of downtown. “The Pearl” is now viewed by locals as San Antonio’s leading urbanist destination—as opposed to the touristy downtown—but it wasn’t always this way. 2. Where’s Scott? Scott Beyer spent week 4 in San Diego. His Forbes article was about […]

Donald Shoup Takes San Francisco

  Every so often during his tenure as mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg tried to push through congestion pricing, in which drivers would have to pay to use city streets in Midtown and Lower Manhattan. That’s a popular solution to chronic overcrowding but, like drinking coffee to try to cure a hang over, it doesn’t really get to the heart of the matter. More intervention usually doesn’t solve the problems that were themselves the result of a prior intervention. Let me explain. In 2011, I had the opportunity to participate in an online discussion over at Cato Unbound. It focused on Donald Shoup’s book The High Cost of Free Parking, which looks at the consequences of not charging for curbside parking. If you’ve ever tried to find a parking spot on the street in a big city, especially on weekdays, you know how irritating and time-consuming it can be. It may not top your list of major social problems, except perhaps when you’re actually trying to do it. In fact, according to Shoup about 30 percent of all cars in congested traffic are just looking for a place to park. The problem though is not so much that there are too many cars, but that street parking is “free.” Except, of course, it isn’t free. What people mean when they say that some scarce commodity is free is that it’s priced at zero. Some cities, such as London, Mayor Bloomberg’s inspiration, charge for entering certain zones during business hours — with some success. (As well as unintended consequences: People living in priced zones pay much less for parking and higher demand has driven central London’s real-estate prices, already sky high, even higher). But this doesn’t really address what may be the main source of the problem: the price doesn’t […]

‘Who better to determine local needs than property owners and concerned citizens themselves?’

The Cato Institute’s Vanessa Brown Calder is skeptical of the Obama administration’s suggestion that state governments can play a role in liberalizing land-use regulation, a policy area usually dominated by local governments. In an otherwise thoughtful post responding to a variety of proposals, she writes that federal and state-level bureaucrats should step aside to allow local advocacy groups to fill the void. She asks, “Who better to determine local needs than property owners and concerned citizens themselves?” Pretty much anyone, really. Local control of land-use regulation is a mistake and concerned citizens in particular are ill-suited for making decisions about their neighbors’ property. Supporters of free societies usually oppose local control of basic rights for good reason. Exercising one’s rights can be inconvenient for or offensive to nearby third parties. Protesters slow traffic, writers blaspheme, rock bands use foul words, post-apartheid blacks live wherever they choose with no regard for long-held South African social conventions, and so on. These inconveniences obviously don’t override rights to freedom of expression, but lower levels of government might be persuaded by people whose sensibilities are offended by these expressions. People are more likely to favor restrictions on rights when presented with a specific situation than they are when asked about general principles. People are even more likely to favor restricting a specific, disliked person’s rights. The landmark First Amendment case, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, is instructive. The plaintiffs, American Nazis planning a parade through a neighborhood populated by Holocaust survivors in Illinois, sued on First Amendment grounds when the local government tried to prevent them from carrying swastikas. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of the Nazis because the First Amendment protects peaceful demonstrations with no regard for the vile or hateful content of the ideas being promoted […]

Trending now

A self-defeating argument
Texas MUD
gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation