Question:
> Page 3 of Thursday March 11’s USA Today had an article on some suburbs > taking steps to prevent building of houses costing near $100,000. (Well > under $100,000 new homes are so unavailable as to not even be an issue > here.)
This prescriptive zoning is what led in New Jersey to two supreme court cases collectively called the "Mount Laurel Decision." You may choose to research that issue.
Response:
>* Requiring homes to have at least a certain amount of land, such as 1/8 >or 1/6 acre total plot area for the property in order to get the price up.
HA! I own vacant land in a Town where my zoning is 1 acre minimum (well okay, actually 40,000 s.f.) Where I live a typical restriction is 200 feet of frontage. Typically, the courts have only struck excessive lot size when over 5 acres was required. >* prohibitions or other restrictions on attached houses.
More common than not in suburban areas. > I certainly think townships can stand to have some residents paying only >85-90 percent of their share of school district expenses because their >property taxes are lower.
But, if expenses are apportioned by property value (the basic principle of property tax), then folks with less expensive property are ALREADY paying their FULL share……. :-) Regards, -V.
Response:
Of chorse it can be a problem inolder communities. I live in a suberb 20 miles SW of Boston Mass. (Walpole). Pretty much the same situation here. The town dates to 1690. The town officials are putting up all sorts ofobstacles to block any new housing. The reason being they don’t want to pay more money on town serices to accomadate more people. As of now, the town services (especially recreaion and schools) leave MUCH to be desered. One of the funniest new bi-laws passed last year was no building built before 1948 could be demolished without special permit, or the land could not have new construction on it for to years afterwards. The funny thin is, anything being demolished will most likely be over 50 years old. Many developers demolish some older structures to make way for a whole new development of houses. Also, the town is very fussy about "accepting" a street, whichmeans it will physicaly maintain the street, utilities and sidewalks, etc. on that street. That too makes builders think twice before starting a developement. Walpole is not the only town in Mass., but there sure arn’t too many like it that don’t like the new. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Page 3 of Thursday March 11’s USA Today had an article on some suburbs > taking steps to prevent building of houses costing near $100,000. (Well > under $100,000 new homes are so unavailable as to not even be an issue > here.) > One thing that is happening in some less-progressive places is that > existing homeowners in houses costing around or over $150,000 resent other > people moving in and paying lower property taxes and supposedly getting > the same services. > <snipped for brevity>
Response:
> Page 3 of Thursday March 11’s USA Today had an article on some suburbs > taking steps to prevent building of houses costing near $100,000. (Well > under $100,000 new homes are so unavailable as to not even be an issue > here.) > One thing that is happening in some less-progressive places is that > existing homeowners in houses costing around or over $150,000 resent other > people moving in and paying lower property taxes and supposedly getting > the same services.
<snipped for brevity> Here in "progressive," "smart growth" Austin, TX, we have a related but opposite problem. Our city is very no/slow/"smart" growth oriented. Property taxes in the city are the highest in the state (~$2900 per $100,000), construction permits and water hook-up fees are sky high to discourage building, housing costs are HIGH in the center of town (a 2Br/2Ba fixer-upper with 1600 s.f. can go for $250-400k), there is a policy of no new road construction or improvement. So, what do we have? A huge problem with urban sprawl – out to the burbs. What is everyone complaining about? Traffic, ugly suburbs, etc. Who is most vocal/complains the loudest? Austin city council, the mayor, etc. Who created the problem? Austin city council, the mayor, etc. Who do they (Austin city council, the mayor, etc.) want to pay to "solve" the problems through construction of light rail, subsidized inner city housing, etc? Taxpayers! Stepping down from my soapbox, I am. . . CK
Response:
Page 3 of Thursday March 11’s USA Today had an article on some suburbs taking steps to prevent building of houses costing near $100,000. (Well under $100,000 new homes are so unavailable as to not even be an issue here.) One thing that is happening in some less-progressive places is that existing homeowners in houses costing around or over $150,000 resent other people moving in and paying lower property taxes and supposedly getting the same services. So some townships are passing zoning and building code laws such as: * Requiring homes to have at least a certain amount of land, such as 1/8 or 1/6 acre total plot area for the property in order to get the price up. * Requiring attached homes to have no more than two bedrooms, so as to deter families with children from buying more affordable homes and paying lower school taxes. * prohibitions or other restrictions on attached houses. This was not a problem in cities nor the older suburbs immediately surrounding long-established major cities. But now we have this problem in newer suburbs. Any time else or any place else in the world, prosperous countries and especially prosperous democracies only existed when they had education available to all and paid for by those able to pay. I certainly think townships can stand to have some residents paying only 85-90 percent of their share of school district expenses because their property taxes are lower. Those who cite less-than-share tax payments are only claiming this much disparity. There has to be more disparity than this in the older suburbs and in the cities and in most medium size towns. Many employers are setting up shop or moving shop to areas near new developments where most houses cost near or over $150,000. So do people need to buy a $150K-plus house or else spend lots of time driving and burning imported gas and emitting air pollution and incurring wear-and-tear on their cars and taxpayer-maintained roads? And how about the effects of minimum plot size on the degree of suburban sprawl?
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.