Somewhere between 20:1 and 40:1 we cross over into no-brainer territory. What’s the point?Īt a ratio of 10:1, resistance starts to soften and we see people with different circumstances start to respond differently. Nobody sensible is going to invest $200,000 in infrastructure in a property and have it end up being valued at only $200,000. At a property value to infrastructure investment ratio of 1:1, everybody walks. I think this is a reasonable thought process and it points to a powerful conclusion. For a $200,000 house, it is definitely worth an additional investment of $5,000 to keep everything around it functioning. It is only when I got to $10,000 where people in large numbers would agree they would pay and, at $5,000, I started to get universal acceptance. If, on the other hand, you own the house clear and free, then you’ve got some incentive to suck it up and pay, albeit grudgingly. If you had no equity in the home, then you’re almost guaranteed to walk. So how about a $20,000 bill? Now we’re starting to get into the “it depends” range. And even if you are not one, all your neighbors would be, which would spell the end of your neighborhood. Again, everyone I asked this question to would give up their house and look somewhere else before shouldering this bill. What if I said your total bill was $100,000 half the value of your house. If the house is worth $200,000 and my additional cost of maintaining the infrastructure to allow me to live in that house is an additional $200,000, than that’s a really bad investment. What if I said your total bill was $200,000? Would you pay it? I’ve been asking people this exact question for the past two weeks and have yet to have anyone who didn’t immediately say “no, there is no way.” And, of course, nobody would pay this. In other words, you are going to also pay a once-a-generation charge for the maintenance and upkeep of all the arterial streets, interchanges, traffic signals, lift station pumps, water towers, treatment facilities, etc… It will only be your share – everyone else will pay theirs – and you won’t be billed again for a generation. And when we’re done with this project – a once a generation undertaking – we’re going to give you the bill.Īnd when we give you the bill for the stuff that directly serves you – the stuff that you but nobody else needs – we’re going to also give you a bill for your share of the communal infrastructure. We’re going to replace all the pipes and service connections. We’re going to fix the street and the curb and the sidewalk. We are going to fix all of the infrastructure directly in front of your home. I come to you on behalf of the city with a proposal. Here’s how we should be thinking about this.Ĭonsider the following: You own a $200,000 house. If density matters for anything, it is a byproduct of success, not its cause. How valuable are the units? How well is the street maintained? What is the inflation rate for construction costs? What is the city’s bond rating? Will the association properly maintain the roof of the building? What will happen to the building across the street currently in probate? Does the city’s code empower NIMBY’s? Productive places are the solution.Īnyone who remotely comprehends the number of variables at play here would never ask such a ridiculous question. Density is not our problem or our solution. I hate density as a metric and whenever I hear someone talk about it my mind reflexively moves on to something more worthy of my time. Let me restate the question: Something that I think would be valuable for planners and everyone else who finds it painful to think independently but instead to take comfort in misapplying “data” provided by others deemed experts (see parking codes as one of many examples) is to have a table of densities that will allow us to zone a Strong Town. What is the right kind of infrastructure for a town of 5000 with 800 people/sq mi, versus a town of 15000 with 2000 people/sq mi? Something that I think would be valuable for planners and everyone else, is to have a reference for how to build financially solvent towns at varying levels of density/size. Just before I went on vacation, Jim Kumon sent me another one (he gets a lot of these emails first now) and suggested, based on the number of times it has been asked, that I give it another go. Either way, in the extreme triage that is my inbox, these emails rank pretty low. The most common question I receive by email is some variation of: what is the right density for a Strong Town? What is the magic number that makes all the math work and that we should plug into our zoning codes to get the optimum place? The act of asking such a question indicates to me that the sender (a) has not read much from our website or (b) has read from our website but not spent much time thinking about it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |