My property is also great for flood mitigation with rain water capture, multiple porous surfaces and loads of trees and shrubs improving air quality and the urban environment. Intangibles. Technically the city should probably be paying me.
In my very unpopular opinion houses like this should be taxed on best use for property value so would be taxed as two infills rather than one small bungalow. This provides the incentive to move.
Weaponizing taxes to force people out of their homes would be very unpopular and borderline fascist. It is also a terrible way to govern and, in my opinion, you are approaching the problem backwards.
To recap - there is a point that a few posters have hinted at but perhaps not outright called out as the reason these 'old' people are still in their bungalows: There are no places being built that meets the needs of these people and makes them want to sell their home and downsize.
If you want empty nesters who are aging out of their family homes to move then you need to build homes & neighbourhoods that meet their needs in such a way that they are excited to move into them. You need a strategy that draws them into their new home (and specifically avoid a strategy that forces people out of their home). This is not a strategy that you can implement by building one or two infills. You would need to execute a few 1000+ house communities with a specific set of requirements in mind.
Think about who these people are:
These empty nesters are likely between 45-65 and are not ready to move into a senior's home.
They have kids that may boomerang back into their living situation because no one can afford a home.
They are likely still working and are potentially at the peak of their careers, earning more than when they were younger
Still active and about in the city.
Probably enjoy the yard they have now and might want one in their new place.
Still need a car to commute.
After living on their own land and in their SFH, they are probably not keen to move into a condo where you have to share spaces and deal with the mess of condo boards.
Instead of a hodgepodge of infill development that is doing nothing to fix your problem, you need a strategy to build an empty nester community:
There would need to be a blend of condos, infills, townhomes, and small SFHs to fit the needs of the various empty nesters
These houses would need to be less expensive than the houses you want these people to vacate so they can benefit from the equity gained from downsizing (otherwise why would they bother moving??)
You would need to ensure services are set up to meet the needs of these empty nesters (clinics, etc. - not schools and daycares)
Great amenities (restaurants, grocers, gyms, pools, etc.)
Once you have that inventory of houses that can draw these empty nesters in then you will see them buy into the idea of downsizing and moving out of their old homes. They can then stay there for a couple of decades until they need to graduate to the seniors home or assisted living facility.
In my opinion, this is the kind of strategy that would get you the result that you want. Blanket re-zoning won't because it isn't really a strategy, it is just wishful thinking that by deregulating an industry that it will magically give you the outcome that you want. But it won't because the corporations do not care about your wishful thinking, they care about profits.
__________________
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
The only thing I kind of liked was the possibility of dedicated pathways away from roads that don't require cyclist / motorist interactions, but how exactly do you make something like that work in, say, downtown? Carve a bike lane through an office or condo building?
I am in support of more physically-separated bike lanes, frankly... even if I don't necessarily agree with on which streets they get installed. Anything to keep cyclists off the fecking sidewalk, because as a Beltline-dweller who walks around a lot, I will tell you to stop dinging in my fecking ear and get onto the road where you belong. And as a driver, I would prefer they not be on the road either.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
I say, RAISE the bike lanes (not to be confused with raze). Put them up at the plus 15 level. Any time they have to cross a +15, ramp them up and over it! Think of the fun of riding around, up in the sky, not a care in the world about cars or pedestrians! Free to move about unencumbered. We just can't have them intefere with Dreeshen's raised LRT downtown, so put them even higher around that area!
Pay for it by taxing those damn bike riding hippies and get them off the precious precious roads.
I sure hope so, because it looks like I'm voting for him this time around. I'm not giving Gondek my vote again, and Davison is tainted by his association with Craig Chandler.
I kind of wish we'd see another dark horse mayoral candidate come out of the woodwork like Nenshi did against McIver and Higgins. Jan Damery seemed like an interesting candidate last go-around, but came in fifth behind Brad Field of all people.
It's interesting that Daorcey Le Bray, who worked for the city under Nenshi, is working on the Farkas campaign.
These are the things breaking my brain in regards to Farkas. When you've got solid people like Daorcey in his corner I almost believe the redemption arc, but in the back of my head there is still doubt.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
These are the things breaking my brain in regards to Farkas. When you've got solid people like Daorcey in his corner I almost believe the redemption arc, but in the back of my head there is still doubt.
Yup, I'm in the same boat.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Weaponizing taxes to force people out of their homes would be very unpopular and borderline fascist. It is also a terrible way to govern and, in my opinion, you are approaching the problem backwards.
To recap - there is a point that a few posters have hinted at but perhaps not outright called out as the reason these 'old' people are still in their bungalows: There are no places being built that meets the needs of these people and makes them want to sell their home and downsize.
If you want empty nesters who are aging out of their family homes to move then you need to build homes & neighbourhoods that meet their needs in such a way that they are excited to move into them. You need a strategy that draws them into their new home (and specifically avoid a strategy that forces people out of their home). This is not a strategy that you can implement by building one or two infills. You would need to execute a few 1000+ house communities with a specific set of requirements in mind.
Think about who these people are:
These empty nesters are likely between 45-65 and are not ready to move into a senior's home.
They have kids that may boomerang back into their living situation because no one can afford a home.
They are likely still working and are potentially at the peak of their careers, earning more than when they were younger
Still active and about in the city.
Probably enjoy the yard they have now and might want one in their new place.
Still need a car to commute.
After living on their own land and in their SFH, they are probably not keen to move into a condo where you have to share spaces and deal with the mess of condo boards.
Instead of a hodgepodge of infill development that is doing nothing to fix your problem, you need a strategy to build an empty nester community:
There would need to be a blend of condos, infills, townhomes, and small SFHs to fit the needs of the various empty nesters
These houses would need to be less expensive than the houses you want these people to vacate so they can benefit from the equity gained from downsizing (otherwise why would they bother moving??)
You would need to ensure services are set up to meet the needs of these empty nesters (clinics, etc. - not schools and daycares)
Great amenities (restaurants, grocers, gyms, pools, etc.)
Once you have that inventory of houses that can draw these empty nesters in then you will see them buy into the idea of downsizing and moving out of their old homes. They can then stay there for a couple of decades until they need to graduate to the seniors home or assisted living facility.
In my opinion, this is the kind of strategy that would get you the result that you want. Blanket re-zoning won't because it isn't really a strategy, it is just wishful thinking that by deregulating an industry that it will magically give you the outcome that you want. But it won't because the corporations do not care about your wishful thinking, they care about profits.
I take no issue with this line of thinking, but I think you have the demographic slightly wrong. I would be surprised if anyone took issue with those 45-65 year old, empty nesters but still working, keeping the family home. That would have been the case for past generations as well. What I believe has changed (at least anecdotally), are those 65-85, long retired, shouldn't be driving, but don't absolutely need assisted living gummers that won't move. Those are my parents in a nutshell. With an aging population and increasing lifespan, the problem will likely continue to grow.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
