Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Tag NIMBY

Euclid’s Legacy

While well intentioned, like many progressive interventions of the eary 1900s, zoning has contributed to sprawl (which has begun to be demonized by progressives over the recent decades) and served to inhibit the vitality and diversity of urban neighborhoods. The triumph of the core philosophy behind Euclid vs. Ambler later enabled destructive urban renewal projects using eminent domain to displace entire neighborhoods, the emergence of unfriendly NIMBY activism, and more recently helped give legitimacy to the decision in the highly controversial Kelo v. New London Supreme Court Case. Steve at Urban Review STL, a Saint Louis-based urbanism blog, wrote a great summary of Euclidean Zoning in the US. The solution to these urban ills was zoning. Cities would create “land use” maps segregating industrial, office, retail, and housing. Early efforts were often used to keep industry from spoiling more pleasant areas of town. In Ohio the Village of Euclid, a Cleveland suburb, enacted zoning in 1921 to keep Cleveland’s industry out of its jurisdiction. A property owner viewed the restriction on the future use of their land as a “taking” by the government and filed suit. The case, Village of Euclid, Ohio v Ambler Realty, went all they way to the U.S. Supreme Court. A lower court had ruled the zoning law to be in conflict with the Ohio & U.S. Constitutions. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed and reversed the lower court’s ruling. Their November 22, 1926 ruling declared use zoning as legal. Since then it has been known as “Euclidean zoning.” In the 82 years since the Supreme Court validated the zoning ordinance for the Village of Euclid, Ohio we’ve managed to take a simple concept — keeping out heavy industry — to a point beyond reasonable. Cities and their suburbs now over regulate uses on land. Residential areas, […]

Dealing With NIMBYs

NIMBYism is the biggest obstacle to the evolution of vibrant urban communities, but the incentives for some to use public forums to impose restrictions on neighboring properties are great. Local politicians often bow to the most vocal residents, often with minority opinions, to avoid making waves, but their impositions are at the expense of the overall community (and the environment). In a recent ULI post and on his own blog, Rob Goodspeed discussed NIMBYism: NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) activism is as bad as ever and getting worse, according to startling new statistics from a consulting company that specializes in overcoming opposition to development. The third-annual Saint Index, a gauge of public opinion on urban development, found one-quarter of Americans say they or a family member have actively opposed a development project. That means Americans are twice as likely to oppose development than support it. Among the findings, 78 percent of Americans think there should be no new development in their community, 44 percent oppose new apartments or condominiums (up from 34 percent in 2006), and 69 percent say their local government is doing a fair to poor job on planning and zoning. In his blog Rob discusses varying definitions of NIMBYism: The key to understanding NIMBYism comes from political science, not the technicalities of zoning. NIMBYism occurs when a politically unrepresentative minority exacts unreasonable costs on the larger community, up to and including blocking otherwise supported developments. This definition comes from a provocative article by Morriss P. Fiorina titled “Extreme Voices: A Dark Side of Civic Engagement” that appears in this text. Rob discusses strategies and solutions for dealing with activists. I tend to agree that as much as we would like to just ignore them, they don’t just go away. The best strategy is to be transparent […]

Urban[ism] Legend: Greedy Developers

This post is part of an ongoing series featured on Market Urbanism called Urbanism Legends. The Urbanism Legends series is intended to expose many of the myths about development and Urban Economics. (it’s a play on the term: “Urban Legends” in case you didn’t catch that) We’ve all heard it said by some NIMBY activist: “This greedy developer doesn’t care about the people of the neighborhood, he just wants to maximize his own profit.” Are developers the devil? No doubt, developers usually are self interested, and seek profit. However, just like in any business, profit seekers must try to satisfy the desires of its customers better than its competitors. The successful developer must direct capital towards creating value in the real estate market for potential customers. So, perhaps it seems particularly greedy that a developer who is creating value in a community, cares less about the current inhabitants than newcomers. But, as Henry Hazlitt wrote in the classic, Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics: the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. here’s a link to the quote in an online version of the book Most Urbanism Legends, like most economic myths, rely on looking at policies from the perspective of one group without looking at the effects on other groups and society as a whole. This Urbanism Legend is no different. Looking deeper at the issue, the developer represents the needs of the community in a less visible, yet […]

Carroll Gardens, Choose Only One: Setback or Height Restriction?

NY Times – Carroll Gardens: The Big Front Yards That Rob the Streets Although the yards serve as leafy margins to the streets, creating ample open space between the rows of brownstones arrayed on either side, they also put those streets into the “wide” category for zoning purposes. This means developers can build structures on those streets that are taller than would otherwise be allowed. In recent months, some local residents, with one eye on all the construction, have been objecting to this rule. Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn NIMBYs will do anything to stop development in their neighborhood. The buildings are set back so far from the street with gardens, yet they don’t want to allow taller buildings in their neighborhood, claiming the streets cant handle it. In my opinion, either allow taller buildings or end the setback requirements. Otherwise, your NIMBY selfishness is just too much.

Bribery for Property Rights: Federal Charges in Chicago

NBC5 has an update listing the people involved and video here: New Corruption Charges Hit Building, Zoning Departments Chicago Tribune: U.S. to announce charges against 15 in city bribe-taking probe (thanks to Dan M. for the tip) Federal authorities are set to announce charges Thursday against 15 people, including seven City of Chicago employees, after an investigation into bribe-taking at the city’s Zoning and Building Departments. City Hall’s zoning process is the subject of the Tribune’s ongoing “Neighborhood for Sale” series. The stories detail how millions of dollars in campaign donations greased zoning changes that transformed the city during the real estate boom of the past decade. What’s scary is that land use is so regulated and the stakes are so high, that developers have to bribe government employees in order to exercise their own property rights. But, that’s how it works: politicians downzone areas, knowing that developers will have to scratch the politicians’ backs to build what the market tells them. There’s often the added political bonus of downzoning to pander to NIMBY factions. The downzoning creates a barrier to entry so that only the developers who are politically savvy can get things done. (see Tony Rezko) It makes the whole planning/development system corrupt. Should we be a bit surprised bribery is happening?

A Recipe to Destroy Affordability in Any City.

Austin Contrarian discusses an article that describes how Seattle has become less affordable in recent years. He prescribes a recipe for Austin to become what he calls a “Superstar City” such as New York, Boston, San Francisco, or Seattle. By “Superstar City”, I assume he means an ultra-hip place where housing prices rise rapidly, NIMBY activism grows, and development is restricted, making it even less affordable for many, except the wealthy and subsidized. The agenda would work for any city: Here’s the agenda I’d propose for propelling Austin into the “Superstar City” pantheon: (1) discourage the construction of traditionally affordable housing like garage apartments and duplexes; (2) restrict the amount of land available for multi-family housing; (3) strictly limit multi-family density; (4) limit the construction of upscale condos and townhomes in order to force affluent homebuyers to compete for the scarce supply of close-in housing; (5) ban small-lot and “urban home” zoning; (6) require property owners/developers who build dense developments to shoulder the financial burden for things like affordable housing, parks and infrastructure; and (7) impose onerous design standards to increase the cost of new construction. We can call it the “progressive” agenda. We’ll be in the superstar ranks in no time. Austin Contrarian: Sound familiar?

“Change” Not Welcome in Harlem: Neighbors Cause Commotion as Harlem Rezoning Passes

Limousine Liberals aren’t the only ones who oppose change. In Harlem, neighbors fought to keep new people out of their neighborhood, and want to force gentrification upon other neighborhoods. In the process they created such a stir at Wednesday’s Council session, they had to be cleared out. It’s such a strange phenomenon: progressives who act conservative; they preach tolerance, while excluding others from what they feel they own collectively. They applaud “Change” as a buzzword, then fight change when it effects them. NY Daily News: Council OKs Harlem rezoning plan; cops called to clear opponents The Real Deal: Council approves Harlem rezoning AMNY: Council approves controversial Harlem development plan Recent Market Urbanism post: 125th Street Rezoning

Abolition of Density Restrictions Would be Great for NYC In The Long Run

Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution asks a great question: How good would the abolition of zoning in New York City be? He argues that zoning restrictions prevent Manhattan from being a “forest of skyscrapers” such as Sao Paulo. Many of Manhattan’s skyscrapers are much taller than typical Sao Paulo skyscrapers. This is mostly because the rock that lies under Midtown and Downtown nearly eliminates the marginal cost of foundations for taller buildings. On the rest of Manhattan island the soil is less friendly to skyscrapers, rendering tall buildings less economical. Nonetheless, restrictive zoning prohibits optimal density in almost all areas of Manhattan. The restrictions are mostly created to cater to NIMBY activists who are afraid of too many people moving to their neighborhood, using more parking spots, making sidewalks more crowded, blocking views, and altering the “character” of their neighborhood. These activists have been granted property rights over their neighbors’ land by pandering politicians. Of course, this restricts creative destruction, and prevents entrepreneurs from increasing supply to meet the market demand. Shortages arise as a result of the density restrictions coupled with a limited stock of developable land. On top of all that, bureaucracy creates barriers to entry for new development. Only well-connected developers are able to grease city hall to get favorable zoning, and subsidies that others could not. This raises the price of land to a level that only well-connected developers can afford, flushing out wannabes that would build more housing and office space. Zoning restrictions, bureaucratic delays, and barriers to entry in NYC create a shortage of housing and office space, drive prices though the roof, and forces people to migrate to the outer boroughs and suburbs to find an affordable place to live. Without density restrictions, Manhattan would still be very expensive due to the higher […]

NIMBYs sue to force developer to “protect character”

Nearby residents want to stall Columbus Village from being their Upper West Side neighbor. The myth that dense development is bad for the environment continues… Maybe high-priced attorneys help propagate these myths at the expense of the environment and supply of housing for the sake of their clients’ Legal Plunder. GlobeSt: Resident Files Suit Seeking Environmental Review

Trending now

gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation
The Great American Streetcar Myth
O’Toole Under More Fire