Minneapolis is trying to increase density in the city by removing single-family zoning. https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family-zoning-housing-racism.html (https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family-zoning-housing-racism.html) What are your thoughts?
I can't argue about zoning being used as a historically discriminatory housing tool. We have examples of it locally. In fact, many of our neighborhoods look the way they do because of our 20th century policies. With that said, I don't see a day coming where Jax follows the Minneapolis model. We're apples and oranges when it comes to urbanity. We don't have the stomach to invest in things like LRT or put our money where our mouths are when it comes to heavily investing in alternative forms of mobility or even encouraging density in our densest neighborhoods. Also, I'm not sure removing single-family zoning will change the built environment much. Houston doesn't have a zoning code yet the built landscape isn't that much different from cities with zoning because the market ultimately drives the development outcome.
I can't speak to zoning, but I'd love to see Jacksonville experiment with a vacancy tax in the CBD, particularly on Laura Street and adjacent streets.
Concept is simple.
If you own a building within a specified area with street-level retail space and that space is empty - whether because of neglect, inflated rent, holding out for long-term tenants, etc. - you pay a fee until it's filled.
Seems to work best in super dense areas, but with how much the city is investing in the area, I like the idea of forcing the hand of non cooperative landlords with retail frontage.
With the amount of the money spent on Unity Plaza, I'd do the same thing to the 220 Riverside owners.
Quote from: KenFSU on December 12, 2018, 02:28:39 PM
With the amount of the money spent on Unity Plaza, I'd do the same thing to the 220 Riverside owners.
Just a note, the retail portion of 220 Riverside was sold in a deed in lieu transaction to a South Florida company that specializes in distressed asset sales. The retail portion no longer has a relationship with the current owner of 220 Riverside, the original developer of 220 Riverside nor the now defunct non-profit that ran Unity Plaza programming.
I would expect that they flip the retail portion of that building to a new owner sometime this year.
Quote from: KenFSU on December 12, 2018, 02:28:39 PM
If you own a building within a specified area with street-level retail space and that space is empty - whether because of neglect, inflated rent, holding out for long-term tenants, etc. - you pay a fee until it's filled.
How would this work in an environment where public policy makes it harder to lease and place certain uses into vacant spaces? Or an environment where some projects are heavily subsidized at the expense of others, to compete for the same small pool of potentially viable tenants?
Very interesting. As far as cutting edge urban policy and politics, Minneapolis is without peer in the US, from everything I have read. St. Paul is probably second in that respect but they seem to follow Minneapolis' lead. I visited there five years ago and it is very impressive.
Minneapolis has non-partisan Ranked Choice voting for city elections. There is shared tax revenues between the cities and the suburbs. The city is without peer for Parks and Recreation quality and governance. No resident is more than six blocks from a park property.
I'm sure this zoning initiative will have some benefits particularly in the realm of 'missing middle' housing but as a pioneer there may be some 'lessons learned' as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/minneapolis-single-family-zoning.html
Another article
MPLS and the suburbs do not share their municipal revenues.
I'm not sure what this changes for zoning. The areas zoned for more density already have it. It would seem to eliminate the need for a variance in those areas.
It doesn't change any of the other 97% costs of building. All the extra thick and heavy red tape is still there. It doesn't really change things up for non residential zoning, does it?
The 2 major changes it makes are :
a) eliminating off-street parking requirements for properties zoned residential
b) green light duplexes and triplexes for any residential property
a may be limited to those properties that apply to be, the so called single family home zoning areas.
There aren't a lot of details on it out there. And we really don't know how this is going to play out.