From the Economist: How to shrink a city

[Bham1982]

A clarification request; do municipalities in Michigan not impose the cost of development [[roads/schools/sewers etc.) on developers?

Yes, it's the same in Michigan. The new residents in the development pay off the assessment. When you move into a new development you will have a considerable assessment bill for a period of time.

The idea that Detroit taxpayers are paying for new sewer lines in Macomb Twp. is pure fantasy.

[Canadian Visitor]

When you move into a new development you will have a considerable assessment bill for a period of time.

Hmm, I think is somewhat different from how it works in Ontario. Here the developer pays most charges up front, and recoups them in the price of the house/unit when sold. There is the odd charge that's tacked onto the sale price, though even there its paid in full upfront by the buyer.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Hmm, I think is somewhat different from how it works in Ontario. Here the developer pays most charges up front, and recoups them in the price of the house/unit when sold. There is the odd charge that's tacked onto the sale price, though even there its paid in full upfront by the buyer.

It's always informative to hear how other cities and countries handle these sorts of things.

In Michigan, developer contributions to infrastructure runs the gamut from improvements paid for by the municipality [[street widening, traffic lights) to taxpayer recapture [[SADs, as mentioned, which can fund road paying or sewer lines) to outright fees [[tap-in fees for sewer, e.g.). It has always been something left to the negotiation between the municipality and the developer. The outcome of those negotiations depends on how valuable the use is perceived. Oddly [[or maybe not), the gold standard is a factory, with jobs and people who spend money but no residents that require services. Building of residences is somewhere well down the ladder, as cities realize that they actually will need more police/fire, etc. for those residents. God forbid if those residents are low-income. They are near the bottom with nuclear power plants and landfills. [[I jest, but not entirely.)

What about in Ontario?

[Canadian Visitor]

It's always informative to hear how other cities and countries handle these sorts of things.

What about in Ontario?

If you click on the link in post a while back, you'll see the non-residential development charges are underneath.

Instead of a charge per unit, its per square meter [[roughly 10sqft)

So the default rate for a commercial [[non-residential) development would be $168 or so per square meter, or $16.80 per sq ft.

So a supermarket at 50,000 sq ft would be about $800,000'ish in charges if my math is right.

There are separate programs to relieve some charges for highly desirable industrial type development and for low-income housing.

****

Overall Toronto, of course, does not want to forestall growth, but currently experiencing a boom that is taxing infrastructure faster than the gov't can keep up and encroaching on some of the world's best farm land daily, there is little pressure to restrain fees [[except by developers) and more pressure to curtain the un-ending sprawl.

We also have a 'Greenbelt' which restricts rezoning from farm/open space much beyond what's currently built out [[though there's probably a 20 yr supply of 'greenfield' land already approved)

And new developments in the Greater Toronto Area are required to adhere to minimum densities of people + jobs per hectare [[2.5 acres) of 150 for suburban areas, 200 for suburban nodes, and 400 anywhere close to downtown Toronto.

***

As for what the fees cover:

Spadina Subway Extension

Transit [[balance)

Parks and Recreation

Library

Subsidized Housing
Police

Fire

Emergency Medical Services

Civic Improvements

Child Care

Health

Pedestrian Infrastructure

Roads and Related
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Water Management


+ The Toronto Green Standard [[think green roof, LEEDs development standards etc)

+ Education charges [[Ranges widely based on school capacity issues, but typically maybe $500 per unit)

[Bham1982]

Hmm, I think is somewhat different from how it works in Ontario. Here the developer pays most charges up front, and recoups them in the price of the house/unit when sold. There is the odd charge that's tacked onto the sale price, though even there its paid in full upfront by the buyer.

Are we talking the bond payment? It sounds the same to me. A revenue bond is issued [[so basically paid up front) and then the developer [[and eventually, the homeowners) pay the money back, with interest.

Or are you saying that no bonds are issued, and the improvement is just paid for in cash up-front?

[Canadian Visitor]

Or are you saying that no bonds are issued, and the improvement is just paid for in cash up-front?

Correct. No Bonds, Cash upfront.

[ABetterDetroit]

On which thread was I arguing that the wealthy live in the sticks?

I never did. You have a reading comprehension problem.

Detroit has nothing to do with the conversation. It's not even a consideration for homeowners. Excepting downtown/midtown, it doesn't exist as a place to live in the regional mindset.

The title of the thread is "From the Economist: How To Shrink a City" Detroit is in the article. Your reading comprehension problem is getting much worse.

Well then that's their problem. Can't blame people for wanting their kids in decent schools and getting good services at a reasonable tax rate. People want new construction, not tiny bungalows in South Warren.

Thanks for telling me that I am right yet again with your "at a reasonable tax rate" Why do you argue when you agree?

What "archaic community destroying tax system" are you referring to? The one where Michigan redistributes tax dollars to prop up the Detroits and Highland Parks of the world?

Everybody pays one way or another for stupid tax code, it just cost a lot more on the back end.

[Detroitnerd]

It hasn't been that long...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...opment-crashes

I remember this in particular.

http://archive.freep.com/article/201...infrastructure

[BankruptcyGuy]

And new developments in the Greater Toronto Area are required to adhere to minimum densities of people + jobs per hectare [[2.5 acres) of 150 for suburban areas, 200 for suburban nodes, and 400 anywhere close to downtown Toronto.

80 residents on one acre of land? Am I doing the math wrong? Or is this development standard for mid/hi-rise projects? This isn't for tract development, is it?

[Canadian Visitor]

80 residents on one acre of land? Am I doing the math wrong? Or is this development standard for mid/hi-rise projects? This isn't for tract development, is it?

Math is close it would be 60 residents and/or jobs in combination per acre.

And

Yes/No

This would be the overall standard for a 'tract' site, in an area targeted for growth.

So not for each block.

A developer arrives with a 400 acre lot, they are expected to come up with 24,000 jobs/residents on that land, in combination.

Consider that 40 stores might employ a dozen people each, add in a health clinic and you've got 1,000 jobs.

That would also mean there is supposed to be mid-rise somewhere on the site, along with retail or other employment uses.

In truth most suburban areas are not hitting that goal, and most more traditional tract sites are at 40 people and jobs per hectare.

This is a link for a fairly typical 'tract' site in the GTA in our north-west burbs.

http://www.mattamyhomes.com/GTA/Comm...ount-Pleasant/

You can see about 10 homes per acre is the typical distribution for the section they're currently marketing, so around 40 residents per acre. [[not incl. space for roads/parks). There is/was some mid-rise in another phase, right next to the commuter rail station.

A typical lot appears to be 20x82

[BankruptcyGuy]

Math is close it would be 60 residents and/or jobs in combination per acre.

And

Yes/No

This would be the overall standard for a 'tract' site, in an area targeted for growth.

So not for each block.

A developer arrives with a 400 acre lot, they are expected to come up with 24,000 jobs/residents on that land, in combination.

Consider that 40 stores might employ a dozen people each, add in a health clinic and you've got 1,000 jobs.

That would also mean there is supposed to be mid-rise somewhere on the site, along with retail or other employment uses.

In truth most suburban areas are not hitting that goal, and most more traditional tract sites are at 40 people and jobs per hectare.

This is a link for a fairly typical 'tract' site in the GTA in our north-west burbs.

http://www.mattamyhomes.com/GTA/Comm...ount-Pleasant/

You can see about 10 homes per acre is the typical distribution for the section they're currently marketing, so around 40 residents per acre. [[not incl. space for roads/parks). There is/was some mid-rise in another phase, right next to the commuter rail station.

A typical lot appears to be 20x82

Very interesting, thank you. That's much tighter than the average suburban development, but not too far off things like Cherry Hill Village [["suburban downtowns", although I shudder writing that).

[Bham1982]

The minimum densities rules in Canada are interesting. In the U.S., of course, almost all jurisdictions have rules on maximum densities, but I have never heard of minimum density rules, not even somewhere super urban like Manhattan. Technically, one could build a 10 acre estate in the middle of Manhattan. Would never happen, of course, but would be legal.

One can see the differences immediately upon crossing the bridge. In Windsor the suburban sprawl is so tightly packed you might as well move downtown if you want space, light and air. To me, it seems like the worst of both worlds, because you're getting the inconvenience and ugliness of sprawl alongside the crowding of urbanity.

Does Canada have a housing shortage, or some rules that restrict housing construction? I don't see the appeal of Canadian sprawl, unless it's much cheaper than existing neighborhoods.

[BankruptcyGuy]

The minimum densities rules in Canada are interesting. In the U.S., of course, almost all jurisdictions have rules on maximum densities, but I have never heard of minimum density rules, not even somewhere super urban like Manhattan. Technically, one could build a 10 acre estate in the middle of Manhattan. Would never happen, of course, but would be legal.

One can see the differences immediately upon crossing the bridge. In Windsor the suburban sprawl is so tightly packed you might as well move downtown if you want space, light and air. To me, it seems like the worst of both worlds, because you're getting the inconvenience and ugliness of sprawl alongside the crowding of urbanity.

Does Canada have a housing shortage, or some rules that restrict housing construction? I don't see the appeal of Canadian sprawl, unless it's much cheaper than existing neighborhoods.

I'm not sure it would be legal in the US. Every zoning code I know has a "takings savings clause" that indicates that the parcel of land, no matter how big or how small, can always be used as a single-family home. Otherwise, the rule is a regulatory taking and compensable. If I owned 400 acres, and my municipality said that I couldn't build a home on it, and instead I'd have to build homes for 24,000 people, I think I'd be testing that theory in court. It is interesting, though, on a theoretical basis.

[Canadian Visitor]

I'm not sure it would be legal in the US. Every zoning code I know has a "takings savings clause" that indicates that the parcel of land, no matter how big or how small, can always be used as a single-family home. Otherwise, the rule is a regulatory taking and compensable. If I owned 400 acres, and my municipality said that I couldn't build a home on it, and instead I'd have to build homes for 24,000 people, I think I'd be testing that theory in court. It is interesting, though, on a theoretical basis.

I can't speak to the U.S. side; but there are a series of differences here.

First 'property rights'; those exist in Canada, gov't can't just arbitrarily take property [[land or money). HOWEVER

Those rights are legislated, not constitutional, we have a long list of constitutional rights in Canada, but property is specifically excluded. Meaning gov't can change the law, with regards for due process etc.

Second, land in the Greenbelt [[ a provincial law) has a range of options, including 'open space' and 'agricultural' and certain forms of resource extraction such as quarrying.

Farms have as-of-right to have a single-family home on them.

And if you owned land that had no home, I'm rather certain you could be approved for one.

Its when you ask for 'upzoning' or permission to sub-divide the lot that you get into the rules around what's permissible.

In the urban area, the municipality always has the right to [[not) approve 'site plans' and rezoning.

The conditions for such approvals are set by the municipality but must follow provincial policy.

****

Not to get too sidetracked, but there is a subtle difference in US and Canadian thought on these things that I think is mirrored well in the two constitutions.

You [[US) have a series of rights, speech, expression etc. which appear at face value to be absolute [[though of course they aren't) but tend to be seen that way.

By contrast the very first section [[1) of the Canadian Charter of rights says this:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Just a slightly different take on the whole enterprise.

[Canadian Visitor]

The minimum densities rules in Canada are interesting. In the U.S., of course, almost all jurisdictions have rules on maximum densities, but I have never heard of minimum density rules, not even somewhere super urban like Manhattan. Technically, one could build a 10 acre estate in the middle of Manhattan. Would never happen, of course, but would be legal.

One can see the differences immediately upon crossing the bridge. In Windsor the suburban sprawl is so tightly packed you might as well move downtown if you want space, light and air. To me, it seems like the worst of both worlds, because you're getting the inconvenience and ugliness of sprawl alongside the crowding of urbanity.

Does Canada have a housing shortage, or some rules that restrict housing construction? I don't see the appeal of Canadian sprawl, unless it's much cheaper than existing neighborhoods.

The difference is price and size.

A single-family home in downtown Toronto will set you back a cool $1,000,000; $600,000 in the inner-burbs for something fairly modest.

Toronto's rich areas have home values ranging from $2,000,000 to more than $25,000,000.

So in the core, many middle-class folks, if they want to own, go the condo route.

Average condo sizes in Toronto are now under 750sq ft on a new build.

Barely room for one or a couple; a family is def. pushing it.

Many want more space [[over 1,000 sq ft) and some sort of back yard, to get that, for under $500,000 means a trip out to sprawl land for the most part.

Keep in mind, most, though not all Canadian cities have their wealthiest areas in the central parts of the city in or near downtown areas. So sprawl is the affordable way to gain some space.

Though its still not as popular as it was, due to the length of commute times, at least in the Greater Toronto area, and probably Vancouver out west. Typical commutes from the burbs easily reach one hour each way and sometimes more.

Rather that give up that time, there's been a move towards more compact urban living [[condos) so you can stroll to work in 5 minutes or less.

But families in particular still require more space that most can get affordably in the core.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...If we changed everything on how business taxes are collected in Michigan out of necessity why not overhaul how the personal taxes are collected? It makes little sense to leave this archaic community destroying tax system in place in this century.

Local taxes should only be paying for local services. If the taxes are higher than they should be, the problem is a spending problem.

The better argument to make is that some costs of the City were created by people who left. Therefore maintenance of some of the stranded infrastructure should be the responsibility of the City.

Of course if the City were to stop trying to be all things to all people, they might be more respect in Lansing. Instead, the city worries about 'human rights', for example. Fine task. Not the City's job.

[emu steve]

Maybe we could have learned from Canada... if only Canada had gone first...

Quoting the post above:

By contrast the very first section [[1) of the Canadian Charter of rights says this:

"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

************

Try explaining a 'reasonable right' [[right subject to reasonable limits) to own guns to someone in the USA who thinks the 2nd amendment is an absolute.

[mwilbert]

I'm not sure it would be legal in the US. Every zoning code I know has a "takings savings clause" that indicates that the parcel of land, no matter how big or how small, can always be used as a single-family home.

This can't be right as written here. All the zoning codes I've ever been subject to prescribe minimum lot sizes [[and often other things, like minimum road frontage) for single family homes and if you don't meet the minimums you can't build a house. Is that what you actually meant?

[BankruptcyGuy]

This can't be right as written here. All the zoning codes I've ever been subject to prescribe minimum lot sizes [[and often other things, like minimum road frontage) for single family homes and if you don't meet the minimums you can't build a house. Is that what you actually meant?

No, most zoning codes do have minimum lot sizes, but they generally contain a provision that always allows you to build a single family home. If they didn't, the minimum lot size requirement would result in a regulatory taking [[Penn Central is the precedent-setting case, if you're interested). The standard is that a regulation results in a taking if it removes the right to all reasonable use of the property.

You can always build something. It may not be much [[setbacks, etc.), but the result of the code cannot be that you can't build anything, otherwise it would be a taking.

[mwilbert]

No, most zoning codes do have minimum lot sizes, but they generally contain a provision that always allows you to build a single family home. If they didn't, the minimum lot size requirement would result in a regulatory taking [[Penn Central is the precedent-setting case, if you're interested). The standard is that a regulation results in a taking if it removes the right to all reasonable use of the property.

You can always build something. It may not be much [[setbacks, etc.), but the result of the code cannot be that you can't build anything, otherwise it would be a taking.

I do not think this is correct. What I believe is true is that changing the zoning to make property unusable is potentially a taking. If the zoning already made the property unbuildable, it isn't buildable. Even some changes are probably not takings--if you have property and your town adds a restriction to that property to commercial/industrial use, if that property is suitable to that type of development then not allowing construction of a single-family house doesn't render the property unusable.

Further, a town can change the zoning giving current landowners the right to build, but not making that right indefinite. For instance, in one town I know of, they changed from a one-acre to 1.5 acre requirement for single-family houses, but they allowed the owners of 1-acre lots to build houses for [[I think) 10 years subsequent, but it was use-it-or-lose-it. If someone wants to build there now, they need 1.5 acres, plus 50 feet of road frontage, not to mention enough non-wetland to site the house and a septic system.

[BankruptcyGuy]

I do not think this is correct. What I believe is true is that changing the zoning to make property unusable is potentially a taking. If the zoning already made the property unbuildable, it isn't buildable. Even some changes are probably not takings--if you have property and your town adds a restriction to that property to commercial/industrial use, if that property is suitable to that type of development then not allowing construction of a single-family house doesn't render the property unusable.

Further, a town can change the zoning giving current landowners the right to build, but not making that right indefinite. For instance, in one town I know of, they changed from a one-acre to 1.5 acre requirement for single-family houses, but they allowed the owners of 1-acre lots to build houses for [[I think) 10 years subsequent, but it was use-it-or-lose-it. If someone wants to build there now, they need 1.5 acres, plus 50 feet of road frontage, not to mention enough non-wetland to site the house and a septic system.

The initial promulgation of the zoning ordinance would be the regulatory taking, in your first example. The vast, vast majority of zoning changes do not meet the regulatory taking requirement--the legislation has to eliminate any "economically viable use" of the property. The case on point [[I had it wrong last time) is Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Commission. The lots were considered "unbuildable" because of a change in erosion laws. The landowner sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that these provisions eliminated any "economically viable use", and were therefore a taking. The dissent claimed [[a claim which was rejected by the majority) that because the owner could picnic, swim, or camp on the property, all his rights were not taken. The majority disagreed, and that's been the law ever since.

What towns can and do enact as far a zoning or building rules go is absolutely no indication of what is lawful. The vast majority of the cases on this issue bubble up from the extreme end of regulatory scale [[See, e.g., Dolan v. City of Tigard, where a person expanding their hardware store was required to build a bike path--the court found the requirement lacking nexus and therefore unconstitutional). But these are only the litigated and reported cases.

[mwilbert]

The initial promulgation of the zoning ordinance would be the regulatory taking, in your first example. The vast, vast majority of zoning changes do not meet the regulatory taking requirement--the legislation has to eliminate any "economically viable use" of the property. The case on point [[I had it wrong last time) is Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Commission. The lots were considered "unbuildable" because of a change in erosion laws. The landowner sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that these provisions eliminated any "economically viable use", and were therefore a taking. The dissent claimed [[a claim which was rejected by the majority) that because the owner could picnic, swim, or camp on the property, all his rights were not taken. The majority disagreed, and that's been the law ever since.

What towns can and do enact as far a zoning or building rules go is absolutely no indication of what is lawful. The vast majority of the cases on this issue bubble up from the extreme end of regulatory scale [[See, e.g., Dolan v. City of Tigard, where a person expanding their hardware store was required to build a bike path--the court found the requirement lacking nexus and therefore unconstitutional). But these are only the litigated and reported cases.

Sure, but what you are saying isn't the same as what you said before. It is true that these cases don't get litigated all that often, and there may be codes that wouldn't hold up in court, but there are often viable uses other than single-family housing, and there are lots of zoning codes that don't allow it on various types of lots.

[BankruptcyGuy]

I'm sorry if my message came through in a confused form. In a residentially zoned area, if you can't build a single-family home of some sort, there is a regulatory taking. It is certainly the case that if you have property zoned industrial or commercial, you can't necessarily build a home there. You can, however, build some small building that meets those requirements. It could be a 5'x5' newspaper stand, but the rule can't be that you can build nothing. Sorry if I wasn't clear.