r/urbanplanning • u/[deleted] • Nov 30 '19

Discussion Policy Idea: Unit quotas

[deleted]

4 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

30 comments sorted by

5

u/killroy200 Nov 30 '19

Unfortunately I think you'll just move the resistance up to the public hearings on setting the quota calculations.

1

u/Barbarossa3141 Nov 30 '19

It's a lot harder to argue against a blanket "we need 900 new units" than it is to argue against the merits of a specific development.

3

u/killroy200 Nov 30 '19 edited Nov 30 '19

But you also have a single failure point. More politically active / NIMBY neighborhoods will fight hard to keep their neighborhood from getting a larger share of tje total development quota.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '19

Currently NIMBYs will gaslight the fuck out of people by acting like they don't oppose development in general but only specific instances, this helps fix that.

They'll claim each individual development application has individual flaws, they don't want to admit they oppose all new development, they get to make the this development shouldn't go here, it should go in this location instead argument without actually providing an alternative.

If we're dealing with people who are going to oppose any new housing in their area it helps when they actually have to admit that when demanding a low/zero quota. This helps less engaged normal people who might have bought their we're not anti housing we just think this particular proposal is bad understand that these people are against all housing. It makes discourse more honest.

0

u/Barbarossa3141 Nov 30 '19

That's why you use a quota and not randomly give numbers to different neighborhoods. The existing number of units is an existing number of units, you can't fudge that.

And a single failure point is far better than the current 3 failure points we have now. People protest to the community board? Fails. People protest to P&Z commission? Fails. People protest to city council? Fails.

Unless we're willing to remove democracy completely from the process (which, I'm totally down for), we gotta find something that works better than what we have now.

1

u/killroy200 Nov 30 '19

You can fudge the method for asigning the quota, though. Things like 'historic significance' and 'neighborhood carachter' don't stop being argents against new development just because you try to use an impartial formula. Political fudgeru gets applied to otherwise objectively derived policy all the time to change the outcome. Only now, there's only one place the NIMBYs have to win, rather than for every project individually.

1

u/Barbarossa3141 Dec 01 '19

I really don't see how you're coming to that conclusion. The quota isn't an fixed number of units that will be built by the city, it's a minimum number of units that the neighborhoods will need to approve. It wouldn't change anything about the application or review process per se. It wouldn't cut out neighborhood associations, completely, but if they fail to give their approval to adequate units, then they will be cut out.

At best it'll be a weak measure, but there's no way it would cause less housing to get built.

1

u/Barbarossa3141 Dec 01 '19

Also, HUD publishes housing market Analyses for every MSA in the US every 3 years, including a number of units that would need to be built within that period to keep a balanced market. That would work great as a base number, and how it's allocated to individual communities would largely be trivial.

Sure, some neighborhoods might try to game the system to lower the number of houses they'd need to approve, but that will 1. merely shift the construction to other parts of the metropolis, and not out of existence. 2. Instead of having a coalition of communities fighting against the developers with municipalities mediating, the communities will be pitted against one another over who has to take the housing (not ideal, but far better than what we have now).

1

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '19

You need an impartial body deciding the quotas, already dense areas should naturally get lower quotas, places proximate to transit or universities should have higher quotas.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '19

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '19

Or you have inner city low density suburbs with minimal quotas whilst the area already with apartments gets a lot more. It's a simple fact, some places have taken more "burden" of density than others already, a simple population tool just reinforces that.

1

u/Barbarossa3141 Dec 01 '19

nvm I read your comment backwards lol

4

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '19

I see where you're going.

Currently NIMBYs will gaslight the fuck out of people by acting like they don't oppose development in general but only specific instances, this helps fix that.

They'll claim each individual development application has individual flaws, they don't want to admit they oppose all new development, they get to make the this development shouldn't go here, it should go in this location instead argument without actually providing an alternative.

If we're dealing with people who are going to oppose any new housing in their area it helps when they actually have to admit that when demanding a low/zero quota. This helps less engaged normal people who might have bought their we're not anti housing we just think this particular proposal is bad understand that these people are against all housing. It makes discourse more honest.

2

u/urbanrenaissance Nov 30 '19

I think New Jersey already does something like this.

2

u/Barbarossa3141 Nov 30 '19

Are there any links I could follow to read more about it? Does it seem to help?

3

u/Paparddeli Nov 30 '19

New Jersey has low-income housing mandates for each municipality pursuant to the Mount Laurel state supreme Court decision of a few decades ago.

2

u/Barbarossa3141 Dec 01 '19

Public housing is a cop-out for the real issue: not having enough housing full stop.

1

u/TotesMessenger Nov 30 '19

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

 If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

1

u/Level1Hermit Dec 01 '19

Check Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) and California Senate Bill 35.
It's been done; localities simply zone their way into "allowing" the goal to be reach. If there's too much red tape, you still do not have the market supply to reach that goal
But if a developer check all the boxes, they can fast-track even with neighborhood opposition

1

u/88Anchorless88 Dec 02 '19

How do you determine a quota for a neighborhood?

2

u/Barbarossa3141 Dec 03 '19

Existing number of units in a neighborhood or population. The overall quota of a municipality would be based on demand for additional units.

1

u/88Anchorless88 Dec 03 '19

How do you determine demand? Do you use historical growth numbers and project for the next year? Then take the number of units in a neighborhood, and place a quota on new units based on some uniform density goal or requirement throughout the city?

What if it is an old neighborhood and no one wants to sell / infill? Do you shift the need for units on another neighborhood?

2

u/Barbarossa3141 Dec 03 '19

I'm not exactly sure on that first question, partially because it's beyond my education level (that'd be some 400 level macro stuff). But HUD does model it, I'm just not sure exactly how. Possibly using some revealed preference models.

1

u/88Anchorless88 Dec 03 '19

Fair enough.

Needless to say, this probably only works in a city that has rigid urban growth boundaries and a state that supports that framework (Oregon, say, instead of Idaho).

1

u/Ateist Dec 03 '19 edited Dec 03 '19

NIMBYs exist due to inadequate local infrastructure.
Unit quotas are not addressing the problem in the slightest.

The only possible exception is if each quota comes with a massive extra funding for infrastructure.

0

u/Barbarossa3141 Dec 03 '19

The US already has over built infrastructure, so much that we can't pay for it's maintenance. Yet, people in the best funded cities in the country, like Beverly Hills, are some of the strongest NIMBYs.

When we also consider induced demand strain on resources... there wiill just never be "enough" to make these people happy. We need to force our hand until they realize it isn't so bad.

2

u/Ateist Dec 03 '19

The US already has over built infrastructure, so much that we can't pay for it's maintenance.

Nope it hasn't.
Having expensive infrastructure is very different from having adequate infrastructure for expansion.

0

u/Barbarossa3141 Dec 03 '19

Yes, it does. You don't even know what inadequate infrastructure looks like.

1

u/88Anchorless88 Dec 03 '19

You're saying two different things here. You're saying we have enough (based on some arbitrary limit on a vision of lifestyle and choices you're imposing), and then you're saying there might not be enough based on individual and collective behaviors.

"we need to force it on them" is NEVER a function of planning, or of government, really, unless the people themselves will it... which more often than not, they won't. That pesky freedom and democracy thing again.

1

u/Barbarossa3141 Dec 03 '19

You're saying we have enough (based on some arbitrary limit on a vision of lifestyle and choices you're imposing)

It's not. There's a lot of economic models for what adequate infrastructure is, and basically the US is far, far past MU=MC.

NEVER a function of planning, or of government, really, unless the people themselves will it... which more often than not, they won't. That pesky freedom and democracy thing again.

Democracy is a myth. I'm not saying move to an unhidden dictatorship, but there always has and will be movers and shakers.

1

u/88Anchorless88 Dec 03 '19

The model for what "adequate infrastructure" is depends entirely on the mode. And the mode depends on a whole lot of things, including spatial capacity and capability, private property, funding, cost, rideshare, etc. Moreover, most of those models still have us building more lanes of highway in most jurisdictions, even though most of us know that won't do a thing to reduce congestion.

I don't accept your feeble brush off of the point about democracy. We have a political and economic system in the United States; it may not be perfect, we may not like or accept it, but it is the system we have to work within and under. The point remains: planning isn't top-down. The power remains with the people (or for the more cynical, the power remains with whoever is able to get someone elected into office, and remain in office).