Would you resist rezoning in your neighborhood?

[looseseal]

I live in a pretty LCOL area. A couple friend of ours owns a single family home in a decent neighborhood. The average home price is probably about $75-110K, tops, which is also probably the median for our whole town. Through some school board construction work, an elementary school a few blocks away from them is no longer in use, and has been sitting empty for about 3 years. A developer has approached the city, and would like to have them rezone the area so he can develop the lot into approximately 25 apartments and three or four duplex units.

My friend, along with many of her neighbors, went to protest the rezoning ordinance at the city council meeting. She is very upset. Their complaints include higher property taxes, lower property values, decreased water pressure, and undesirable people coming into the neighborhood.

I haven't commented to her, and likely won't, but I feel as though her arguments are, well, ridiculous. How does a lower property value equate to higher property taxes? Decreased water pressure? Undesirable people just because they are apartments?

So, would you resist this?

[VeryViolet]

I do think in some areas putting in apartments/duplexes lowers the property values. That would make me not super thrilled particularly if I was looking to sell soon. It is a double edged sword though because I think the reason sometimes it lowers values is usually because people like your friend who are all "OH NOES the poors are coming" which is asinine but that doesn't change the fact that my house may be worth less.

[ECB]

I'd need to do my research. And has your friend done hers?

Not far from my house is a retirement home of sorts and they have a HUGE plot of land. they have been trying to get it rezoned for years and the entire surrounding area of residents keeps fighting. Most recently, they wanted to do a combined apartment building w/ retail businesses on the street level.

I get it why people are fighting - the location is one that to add in apartments and retail, it would probably create traffic issues. It's LARGELY residential right there and I can see the cluster that would happen.

I often think these things are more that people just resist change!

[Deleted]

Yes, I would resist it. The fact that your property values are already low doesn't mean she shouldn't mind them plunging further.

[karmasabiotch]

I would rather single houses than duplexes or apartments. I would probably be in the anti group.

[lilafowler]

Renters are ruining the world?

Fuck

[looseseal]

I don't know many of the specifics. The developer has said that he doesn't intend it for low income housing. Among the supporters of the ordinance were his property manager and several of his current tenants, who indicate he is a good businessman and landlord. We also have a generally acknowledged shortage of rental properties available in our area.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't resist it, no.

A shortage of multifamily housing in most communities across the country contributes to wealth of societal problems, environmental sustainability and inflated housing prices chief among them. Never mind the fact that the reasons listed are usually smokescreens for racism. I mean, decreased water pressure? You don't think they have engineers to figure that shit out? Give me a break.

Because typically when people don't want "vagrant undesirables", what they really mean is, "I don't want to live near people that don't look like me".

[Deleted]

If it were my community, I would be asking about things like architectural design, integration into the community, defensible space, etc. Will there be any commercial space?

Its fair to ask about density. Can the traffic designs and local schools handle an extra 30 units? Is there a demand for the bedroom mix they are proposing? You don't want 30 vacant units sitting around if they haven't done marketing research properly.

Reserving a certain number of units for subsidized housing (what people refer to as Section 8) doesn't necessarily mean anything either. Again, the questions asked need to be: what kind of screening will the landlord conduct for all tenants? Will criminal records be run? Housing histories? Landlord references? Credit checks?

[luckyval]

I wouldn't fight it and would be pleased that someone is making good use of this vacant property. Like @missusbee said, there's a shortage of multi-family housing options in many communities. Mixed-use development isn't a bad thing.

[wowhead]

Mar 18, 2014 9:32:15 GMT -5 @missusbee said:

If it were my community, I would be asking about things like architectural design, integration into the community, defensible space, etc. Will there be any commercial space?

Its fair to ask about density. Can the traffic designs and local schools handle an extra 30 units? Is there a demand for the bedroom mix they are proposing? You don't want 30 vacant units sitting around if they haven't done marketing research properly.

Reserving a certain number of units for subsidized housing (what people refer to as Section 8) doesn't necessarily mean anything either. Again, the questions asked need to be: what kind of screening will the landlord conduct for all tenants? Will criminal records be run? Housing histories? Landlord references? Credit checks?

Get out of my head!!

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2014 8:53:01 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

It would depend on the developer and his plans.

Upscale apartment complex? I'd be okay with that.

Section 8 assisted living? Not so much.

1% = good
Poors = bad

[MWOS]

the hell renters don't pay property tax. that cost is....included in my rent

[daisycat]

Mar 18, 2014 8:56:41 GMT -5 @cse1960 said:

I would resist this.
Rental property reduces the value of nearby single family residences for a lot of reasons, including but not limited to the 'undesirables' issue. Development like this increases property taxes to pay for the increased sewer, sanitation and water lines that need to be placed, as well as road development. It places a higher burden on schools as well; renters don't pay property tax (which covers schools, roads etc) and developers often receive tax breaks on this kind of thing in exchange for development, so guess who ends up paying the balance? yep, local homeowners.

Ditto Sue Sue.

[Deleted]

Mar 18, 2014 9:48:02 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

Mar 18, 2014 9:40:17 GMT -5 @missusbee said:

1% = good
Poors = bad

In terms of property value, yes.  I'm not making character assumptions about people with lower income; it's unequivocal fact that lower-income housing will lower surrounding property values. 

But thanks for the lesson.  lol. 

Except that it isn't an unequivocal fact. 

www.nhc.org/media/documents/Dontputithere.pdf

[wowhead]

There is a structure and land that have been sitting vacant for 3 years. This is property that is earning your town nothing and providing nothing to your community. It could be developed and fulfill the needs of the residents and increasing the tax base while conforming with the surrounding neighborhood (still a residential use just with a higher density.) My guess is that the zoning board is not going to be swayed by the "not in my back yard" argument.

[janegold]

It would all depend on the specifics of the plans, including all those that @missusbee mentioned, but in general, I would rather see a well-planned rental community nearby than an abandoned building.

Also, I live in a neighborhood that includes multi-million dollar homes, subsidized apartments and public housing within a two-block radius, so I wouldn't say that it's a given that property values will be reduced by the addition of rentals, low-income or not. There are currently huge developments going in near me and we expect them to increase our property value as they will also be revitalizing a previously under-developed area of the neighborhood. Granted, I know city property trends are unique but there are a lot of factors at play in any community so I think it's hard to say that such a development will definitely be detrimental to property values.

[looseseal]

Thanks, @missusbee, that article had some interesting information. This property has been vacant for three years, and there is a very finite space available for development. The plan doesn't indicate commercial development, and there would be no additional roads necessary, probably just a small amount of additional parking (I'm not sure what was available for the teaching staff previously, it was an elementary school). It's in the middle of a solid, nice, low crime neighborhood. The design, I'm not sure.

And, wowhead, you may be surprised. The city council passed the ordinance 3-2 last night, but one member indicated he doesn't agree with it, but passed it only to hear further arguments.

[Deleted]

looseseal That article was limited to income-restricted housing, so there may be even less of a concern if it is market rate housing (as the developer seems to indicate per your earlier response). You're right that zoning boards, like the average citizen and certainly all elected officials that cater to voters and donors, are not always easily swayed by fact. My point is to show that when it comes to NIMBYism, facts can be easily lost in the tide of OHNOES and it can be helpful to know what the right questions are.

[cville]

I likely wouldn't in my neighborhood. Property values are relatively stable despite the fact that within half a mile are stores/apartments/condos/Section 8.


ETA:  I read that article missusbee posted about affordable housing and found it very interesting.  That certainly holds true in my neighborhood.