As a young college student, I lived with my grandmother near the University of Minnesota, and studied in the living room, with the large Oriental rug. Taking a break one night, I asked her:
Grandma---where did this oriental rug come from?
She replied, "Your grandfather won it in a poker game at the James J. Hill Mansion one night back in 1929."
That made sense. The rug was a bit worn. Still....just the idea of a poker game with the legendary James J. Hill, the Robber Barron, really got my interest.
In the olden days, when Robber Barrons were robber barrons, the Federal Government had a development program-----they cut deals for the railroad, for states, for land....directly with the Robber Barrons. That was the development plan.
In the modern age, this policy has been modified-----now it is established practice that the Community has a role in establishing what is in the community interest. They have input in the development process. It is not just a back room deal.
So----mouthing by politicians about "The Market" ---you may have heard some of this in audio lately----is just nostalgia for the days of old when the Robber Barrons met and cut deals in the back room----nowdays, the public has a say----and some folks, namely folks who think themselves robber barrons, find this offensive.
In the Planning Commission meeting last week was a thoughtful dialogue on this issue. The developers noted that the current ordinance was too complicated. It needed simplification. It was too rigid. It needed some flexibility. Their remedy was to junk the ordinance completely. They accepted no ideas for limits of any kind.
The Smart Growth Plan of 2005 made a finding of fact that there was an excessive number of lower value homes in Evansville which has led to higher property taxes since new homes built did not develop enough revenue to pay for infrastructure for the city---and not enough revenue to pay for the building required for the school system. This finding of fact at the Smart Growth plan has been extensively documented by school and city officials. It represents a valid community need. That valid community need cannot be dismissed by mouthing by folks about the "Market."
To be successful in promoting Evansville to the hinterlands, we need a community that offers affordable family living---at the current time we are on the high end of the tax spectrum. To eliminate the minimum house size ordinance would make this worse.
I believe it is prudent to modify, simplify.....but NOT eliminate the minimum house size ordinance. It represents a valid community interest for Evansville. Please tell your alderman what your thoughts are about this issue.
Click on the post for the housing section of the Smart Growth Plan adopted by Evansville in 2005.
The Evansville Observer Archive: The unofficial history of Evansville, Wisconsin from 2005-2013: Thousands of Video and Audio and Articles; Free: To Search scroll to the Search this Blog line and enter name of person, topic, or issue. Then scroll up to see all articles. Or use Google Search by topic. Enjoy.
In recent years (much of it during my tenure as city adminstrator), the city incurred large amounts of debt to pay for projects that were long overdue: Lincoln St., USH 14, and Main St. In addition, it took on more debt for projects and purchases that made good sense, but where not "must do" items: S. Union St. (formerly Exchagne St.) and purchasing the old ceramic shop and the old Piggly Wiggly. Now the city is talking about acquiring the old fire station, and if the old station is available it means the city also will be paying half the cost of constructing a new fire station. The city will borrow and spend well over a million dollars developing the park on the west side, which is a direct consequence of new residential development. The city likely will borrow millions of dollars for a library expansion, which again is a direct consequence of new residential development. And a new school might be in our future, again because of new residential development. And then there is the large cost of dredging Lake Leota.
ReplyDeleteThe city already has one of the highest property tax rates of comparable cities in the state. Can the city afford to take on all of this additional debt without sending property taxes through the ceiling?
Not if the only new houses being built in the city are small and of relatively low value. Unless the city, the developers, and the builders can figure out a way to attract to Evansville more home buyers who want larger, more expensive houses and builders who want to market and build those house, the city is doomed to extremely high property taxes in the future. (The full impact won't be apparent until years from now, because the city structures it bonds so that most of the principal of the debt must be paid of in the final years of the bond's term.)
The minimum house size zoning made it possible to set aside PARTS of new subdivisions for larger homes. It did not require all new houses to be larger. The number of lots with larger minimum house size zoning and the number of lots on which small houses could be built was negotiated with the developers, and the developers decided where those lots should be distributed within the subdivision. If that balance was not right, especially given the current downturn in the housing market, then it could be adjusted through rezoning. There was no need to completely abandon the zoning tool itself.
As for simplification, the system was quite simple, so I don't know how one would simplify it. The builders just want to be able to build whatever they know how to market, and devil may care what it does to the city and its property tax payers. And one of the builders with this attitude is an alderperson.
Bill Connors
Former Evansville City Administrator
Is Amen apporiate?
ReplyDelete