Nashville Bits and Pieces

[PaulChinetti]

https://www.musiccity.homes/facts?fbclid=IwAR0F7boT_o1-FO1IS6MFt4iux9KYLrr-BJkDdMcXoaA2hp5lY95bStA9CsY
 

This will help too!

[smeagolsfree]

13 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

https://www.musiccity.homes/facts?fbclid=IwAR0F7boT_o1-FO1IS6MFt4iux9KYLrr-BJkDdMcXoaA2hp5lY95bStA9CsY
 

This will help too!

I do not think this will pass because there is too much push back from other district council members. I do not think the support is there.

[markhollin]

With 18% of Nashville office space empty, the quest for solutions intensifies.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2024/02/22/nashville-office-space-twenty-percent-nashville-offices-sit-empty/72601310007/

[PaulChinetti]

I already sent my support to my council person. Hopefully you all will too!

So more mixed use!

• NEST allows homes to be built in commercial districts countywide.

More density on smaller lots!

• NEST allows for single stair egress and ingress for small scale apartments.

Well that seems counterintuitive. You know a way to fix more houses, zero lot lines. I live on a plot with 2 SFHs. Our houses are 16ft wide. The set backs make up another 12 ft between both houses. That's basically another residence!

• NEST removes minimum lot size - but not footprint or setback or density - requirements from multifamily residential districts.

[Bos2Nash]

3 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

https://www.musiccity.homes/facts?fbclid=IwAR0F7boT_o1-FO1IS6MFt4iux9KYLrr-BJkDdMcXoaA2hp5lY95bStA9CsY
 

This will help too!

3 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

I do not think this will pass because there is too much push back from other district council members. I do not think the support is there.

There is a ton of push back, but I have been told that the pattern book bill has already gone through and been pushed to planning.

2 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

I already sent my support to my council person. Hopefully you all will too!

So more mixed use!

• NEST allows homes to be built in commercial districts countywide.

More density on smaller lots!

• NEST allows for single stair egress and ingress for small scale apartments.

Well that seems counterintuitive. You know a way to fix more houses, zero lot lines. I live on a plot with 2 SFHs. Our houses are 16ft wide. The set backs make up another 12 ft between both houses. That's basically another residence!

• NEST removes minimum lot size - but not footprint or setback or density - requirements from multifamily residential districts.

I sent in my support as well and received feedback from two At-Large CMs. They are doing alot of outreach because of the high levels of pushback from alot of folks. I plan on attending a public meeting in Madison in March with CMs Benedict, Capp and Evans-Segall (one of the leads of the NEST bills).

I supported all but one of the bills, but the non-support was more nuance and wording. It was the Residential Scale, Multi-Family bill. Multi-family is used in the title of the bill (and subsequent land-use category) but it is for two/three/four unit structures, designed to look like single family structures. In another bill, the definition of "multi-family" has been revised to specifically be for structures of "three or more units". So in an attempt to simplify and make things easier, the bills are adding a certain level of confusion. I would rather the council revise the "two-family" land-use category to just be two/three/four family land use. Based on what the CMs have told me, I kinda get it, but I also feel like we are adding an unnecessary layer to the zoning code to avoid a more complicated - but thorough - bill passage.

My biggest compliant however, is the steps they are taking are not big or impactful enough, IMHO. I'll use the minimum lot size example. It is great that we are moving to that, but they are paired with other elements of the zoning code. For example, on an RM-9 lot, the minimum lot size is 9,000 SF (currently) with and FAR of 0.6. To build a 5,000 SF structure (maximum allowed under the proposed bills), you would still be required to have  a parcel that is 8,333 SF. So to me, this bill should also be partnered with an FAR adjustment. I have been told that is part of a long-range effort to update FAR, but I think it needs to have more immediacy. Similar to FAR was a big factor in the parking minimum/maximum conversation. By eliminating the parking minimums (FYI single family/two-family were exempted from that change) people talked about adding more housing. But without adjusting the FAR (which parking is not part of that calculation) a site that has already maxxed out its FAR can't in fact replace its parking with housing, because the FAR says you can't. Removing parking regs was a win, for sure, but to see the actual effects we need to take the next step in adjusting the actual controls on the built structure. Otherwise it is feel-good, fluffy legislation in my mind.

[markhollin]

Nashville Metro Codes offers insight on recent panel discussion:

More at CityNowNext here:

https://citynownext.com/2024/02/23/metro-codes-offers-insight-on-recent-panel-in-nashville/#more-39011

[markhollin]

This chart shows that Nashville office space is holding pretty steady at about .02% gain in empty space in the last year, and how it compares with many other markets in the country:

More at NBJ here:

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2024/02/28/office-inventory-savills-sublease-space.html

[smeagolsfree]

On 2/22/2024 at 11:03 AM, Bos2Nash said:

There is a ton of push back, but I have been told that the pattern book bill has already gone through and been pushed to planning.

I sent in my support as well and received feedback from two At-Large CMs. They are doing alot of outreach because of the high levels of pushback from alot of folks. I plan on attending a public meeting in Madison in March with CMs Benedict, Capp and Evans-Segall (one of the leads of the NEST bills).

I supported all but one of the bills, but the non-support was more nuance and wording. It was the Residential Scale, Multi-Family bill. Multi-family is used in the title of the bill (and subsequent land-use category) but it is for two/three/four unit structures, designed to look like single family structures. In another bill, the definition of "multi-family" has been revised to specifically be for structures of "three or more units". So in an attempt to simplify and make things easier, the bills are adding a certain level of confusion. I would rather the council revise the "two-family" land-use category to just be two/three/four family land use. Based on what the CMs have told me, I kinda get it, but I also feel like we are adding an unnecessary layer to the zoning code to avoid a more complicated - but thorough - bill passage.

My biggest compliant however, is the steps they are taking are not big or impactful enough, IMHO. I'll use the minimum lot size example. It is great that we are moving to that, but they are paired with other elements of the zoning code. For example, on an RM-9 lot, the minimum lot size is 9,000 SF (currently) with and FAR of 0.6. To build a 5,000 SF structure (maximum allowed under the proposed bills), you would still be required to have  a parcel that is 8,333 SF. So to me, this bill should also be partnered with an FAR adjustment. I have been told that is part of a long-range effort to update FAR, but I think it needs to have more immediacy. Similar to FAR was a big factor in the parking minimum/maximum conversation. By eliminating the parking minimums (FYI single family/two-family were exempted from that change) people talked about adding more housing. But without adjusting the FAR (which parking is not part of that calculation) a site that has already maxxed out its FAR can't in fact replace its parking with housing, because the FAR says you can't. Removing parking regs was a win, for sure, but to see the actual effects we need to take the next step in adjusting the actual controls on the built structure. Otherwise it is feel-good, fluffy legislation in my mind.

My problem with this bill is as follows.

Number one: Breaks up the continuity of established neighborhoods. There are few of these left in Nashville proper. 

Number Two: There will be no such thing as affordable in these neighborhoods. It will just be housing. In these neighborhoods it will be expensive housing as these are higher end neighborhoods.

Number three: The council members sponsoring the bill should recuse themselves as they are realtors and could have a conflict of interest.

Number Four: Developers are the ones originally behind the NEST bill. Enough said. They are just out for more money. Not affordable housing. Just housing. 

Number Five: Plenty of areas already available to build as it is that are not yet built out. example or of Woodbine, Charlotte Park, Madison, many parts of East Nashville. What makes these other areas more attractive? This fact that they are in higher priced neighborhoods where home values are already higher and the lots would fetch a higher price and thus the homes built there would fetch a higher price because of location, location, location!

I expect to be jumped on, but the truth is the truth. This is done for the greedy developers and real estate agents by developer and real estate agents. There will be no affordable housing as that is just a buzz word to get it through council as we all know affordable cannot be mandated and there will be no rules to speak of to protect what happens with these homes as far as price point.

 

[Edgefield D]

38 minutes ago, smeagolsfree said:

My problem with this bill is as follows.

Number one: Breaks up the continuity of established neighborhoods. There are few of these left in Nashville proper. 

Number Two: There will be no such thing as affordable in these neighborhoods. It will just be housing. In these neighborhoods it will be expensive housing as these are higher end neighborhoods.

Number three: The council members sponsoring the bill should recuse themselves as they are realtors and could have a conflict of interest.

Number Four: Developers are the ones originally behind the NEST bill. Enough said. They are just out for more money. Not affordable housing. Just housing. 

Number Five: Plenty of areas already available to build as it is that are not yet built out. example or of Woodbine, Charlotte Park, Madison, many parts of East Nashville. What makes these other areas more attractive? This fact that they are in higher priced neighborhoods where home values are already higher and the lots would fetch a higher price and thus the homes built there would fetch a higher price because of location, location, location!

I expect to be jumped on, but the truth is the truth. This is done for the greedy developers and real estate agents by developer and real estate agents. There will be no affordable housing as that is just a buzz word to get it through council as we all know affordable cannot be mandated and there will be no rules to speak of to protect what happens with these homes as far as price point.

 

I agree with many of your points. I don’t necessarily think this will make things more affordable. I know, in my own neighborhood….I think what would happen is that the remaining little 50s ranch houses would be gobbled up (for probably 500 to 600k…at least). Those are the ones that can be knocked down.  Then, some high end condos would be built back. It IS about supply and demand. Nashville DOES have a housing affordability problem…I’m just not sure this is the fix. I will also take the criticisms for my position

Edited March 6 by Edgefield D

[samsonh]

22 minutes ago, Edgefield D said:

I agree with many of your points. I don’t necessarily think this will make things more affordable. I know, in my own neighborhood….I think what would happen is that the remaining little 50s ranch houses would be gobbled up (for probably 500 to 600k…at least). Those are the ones that can be knocked down.  Then, some high end condos would be built back. It IS about supply and demand. Nashville DOES have a housing affordability problem…I’m just not sure this is the fix. I will also take the criticisms for my position

This is meant to be a first step in fixing affordability, not a cure all. Increased supply is the only thing to cure the issue. Unless we want to make Nashville a worse place to live and crimp demand. 

[PaulChinetti]

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

My problem with this bill is as follows.

Number one: Breaks up the continuity of established neighborhoods. There are few of these left in Nashville proper. 

Number Two: There will be no such thing as affordable in these neighborhoods. It will just be housing. In these neighborhoods it will be expensive housing as these are higher end neighborhoods.

 

What does number 1 mean, adding more homes, or adding specific types of homes breaks up the "continuity" of the neighborhood?

Number 2, a quad plex in any neighborhood is going to be cheaper than a SFH in any neighborhood. 

[Luvemtall]

I think the most common misconception is what actually is affordable housing, sure there’s greedy developers and realtors but that’s a smaller percentage than most people realize. It’s more about the market value and supply, that makes it seem less affordable. If your thinking affordable means a 2000 sq ft SFH in the city proper for less then 250,000 or a 1200 sq ft rent with amenities for less then 1000.00 per month that’s not going to happen, even with government assistance. Maybe some cheaply built section 8 apartments, but that’s really not desirable to anyone or should it be. Nashville’s explosive growth and rapid expansion has catapulted it into a new level that most here weren’t ready for. It’s now grown up and is a big gal now and it has blindsided most native or longtime residents. But compared to its peer cities, is still more affordable then most. It’s just that new status hasn’t had the proper time to sink in , it happened so quickly. My recent trip to the northeast was a reminder of how “affordable” the Nashville area is compared to other parts of the country. The population of all five major cities in Connecticut doesn’t equal that of Nashville proper, yet the housing is more expensive per square foot and taxes are 1000 times higher, my sister pays 10,000 dollars per year for property taxes on a 1200 sq ft home on a 1/4 acre lot . IMHO , Middle Tennessee has a lot of catching up to do to its peers , before people can start to complain about affordability 

[samsonh]

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

My problem with this bill is as follows.

Number one: Breaks up the continuity of established neighborhoods. There are few of these left in Nashville proper. 

Number Two: There will be no such thing as affordable in these neighborhoods. It will just be housing. In these neighborhoods it will be expensive housing as these are higher end neighborhoods.

Number three: The council members sponsoring the bill should recuse themselves as they are realtors and could have a conflict of interest.

Number Four: Developers are the ones originally behind the NEST bill. Enough said. They are just out for more money. Not affordable housing. Just housing. 

Number Five: Plenty of areas already available to build as it is that are not yet built out. example or of Woodbine, Charlotte Park, Madison, many parts of East Nashville. What makes these other areas more attractive? This fact that they are in higher priced neighborhoods where home values are already higher and the lots would fetch a higher price and thus the homes built there would fetch a higher price because of location, location, location!

I expect to be jumped on, but the truth is the truth. This is done for the greedy developers and real estate agents by developer and real estate agents. There will be no affordable housing as that is just a buzz word to get it through council as we all know affordable cannot be mandated and there will be no rules to speak of to protect what happens with these homes as far as price point.

 

Point 1: Nashville is a growing place. It is not fair to the rest of the city for West Meade or Green Hills to avoid density and push it all to the pikes or other neighborhoods in the city. This is a city, density is part of living in it.

Point 2: The only way to make housing affordable is to attempt to stifle price increases through increased supply, which is exactly the point of these bills. If more expensive homes are built in a denser manner in certain neighborhoods that is great! Those are purchasers that are not competing for cheaper houses elsewhere in the city. Supply keeps prices down. NEST is not meant to address affordable housing such as public housing. That will have to be addressed through other means. 

Point 3:Which council people are realtors that are sponsoring the bill? I know Quin worked at a title company but she has stepped back from development for conflict of interest reasons. Rollin Horton is an attorney for financial services company. Not involved in real estate in any manner.

Point 4: Which developers? I am sure they like the bills, as it will allow more construction. Developers are not bad, I would venture every person on this board lives in a housing unit built by a developer. Making money is not a bad thing.

Point 5:The neighborhoods you listed are all going through massive redevelopment. Why are those neighborhoods forced to have density and other neighborhoods are not? Is it because the wealthy have more time and means to lobby against development in their areas? 

 

The world runs on greed. Making money is not a bad thing, it's a very American thing. Competition is great, and these bills collectively should enable more of it by allowing smaller developers an easier path. The bill sponsors are very clear that this will not address the affordable housing needs. They are extremely clear that this is meant to address the middle class. Those on the left generally are against it because it provides no money for public housing. Those are the right are upset because neighborhood character. If you are upsetting both of those constituencies you probably have good legislation. Lastly, this is about property rights. I should be allowed to build on my property the things I want to. Unnecessary restrictions increase costs.  Increased supply decreases costs. People will make money, and that is a good thing!

[Bos2Nash]

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

My problem with this bill is as follows.

I don't think it is jump on worthy, but I think maybe we are seeing some different generational mindsets/thoughts come into play. See my responses below in bold.

Number one: Breaks up the continuity of established neighborhoods. There are few of these left in Nashville proper.  I disagree. While I don't support the wording/title of the "residential scale, multi-family", the intent of this is the exact opposite. The larger unit structures are held to the standard of looking like they blend into the neighborhood. Sure their footprint will be larger, but the "greedy developers" are already maximizing the footprints of their new builds anyways. So in reality, we are just adding to the neighborhoods by having large footprint structures with multiple units within said footprint rather than just one unit. I think we could go alot further, but we are being told this is a "stepping stone" (I will believe it isn't the "only stone" when I see the next round of zoning bills)

Number Two: There will be no such thing as affordable in these neighborhoods. It will just be housing. In these neighborhoods it will be expensive housing as these are higher end neighborhoods. "Affordable" is going to be very subjective as talked about multiple times and and mentioned above. Will these new units be true "affordable" by being income restricted? No. But the language is using the logic of supply and demand as a way of adding enough housing for the prices to come back down into a realm of reality for more people. I think it is very buzz wordy to use such language, but governments all over the country use it to help with these kinds of bills. Our DADU legislation also did the same thing by trying to say the DADUs are a way to alleviate gentrification/displacement, but that was also just buzz words. Using terms like affordable and gentrification/displacement in these bills are pure politics. The American Dream shouldn't be looked at anymore as a single-family home with the white picket fence. It has morphed over the generations into being able to have a place you call home (owning if you choose that), provide for you and your family with a home, food, comfort. The old Dream was very specific, but has morphed to become blurry due to the changing of generations.

Number three: The council members sponsoring the bill should recuse themselves as they are realtors and could have a conflict of interest. I will jump on you here. Don't be ridiculous! This is about as good of an arguement as saying moving the Family Justice Center up to Brick Church Pike is a good idea because more crime happens there or that putting our transitional housing building directly behind a jail is a good social choice. If the realtors were really just trying to line their pockets, they would want to have the large footprint structures with one unit because their commission is based on a percentage of the sale price. 

Number Four: Developers are the ones originally behind the NEST bill. Enough said. They are just out for more money. Not affordable housing. Just housing. If developers want to build this kind of housing, let them. These bills are not allowing 5-over-1s into every neighborhood. These bills are trying to get more housing units within these neighborhoods while working at the established neighborhood scale. A diversity of housing within these neighborhoods never hurt anything. 

Number Five: Plenty of areas already available to build as it is that are not yet built out. example or of Woodbine, Charlotte Park, Madison, many parts of East Nashville. What makes these other areas more attractive? This fact that they are in higher priced neighborhoods where home values are already higher and the lots would fetch a higher price and thus the homes built there would fetch a higher price because of location, location, location! Plenty of area for development may work when we talk about height in town, but within the areas of walkability or healthy neighborhoods or even within areas to drive-up walking and cycling (to help meet your demand ideas for justifying bike lanes) we need to add additional housing the areas that are already built. Just because the zoning is there for these units doesn't mean every developer is going to build these units. Every developer/contractor/realtor has a target audience they are looking to attract. If a developer is willing to pay the price of one of these parcels and wants to attract folks who want to walk and ride their bike everywhere, they may be inclined to build a quadplex. Another developer/contractor/realtor may buy a lot zoned for multiple units, but only want to attract a millionaire investor. So they would build a single unit, large footprint house and maximize their cost per square foot. There is nothing wrong with either scenario as those business folks have their targets. But these bills are essentially just saying the options on those parcels are being widened for these desirable areas. 

Within the USO (where the majority of these bills are targeted), we should absolutely be allowing a diversity of housing units. When I look at our zoning as a whole, I whole-heartedly believe that we still need to look at a Form-Based (which CM Evans-Segall expressed her desire for as well) zoning approach. People love to dig on the notion of "build on the pikes", but that is the logical starting place for larger density/proximity. You then can transition down into smaller scales such as established neighborhoods scales where we allow for multi-unit structures such as the one laid out in these bills. By allowing the density on the pikes, you then create more proximity for the neighborhood scale structures that you transition down to. When the pikes are then designed to accept folks living within proximity (ie ROW equity which I have been harping on lately) you create a more healthy, livable neighborhood. The intent of the NEST bills as I read them (and I pain stakingly read every word lol) is to create the options for additional housing units, not mandating that they are built.

[smeagolsfree]

West Meade, Creive Hall, parts of Green Hills, parts of Bellevue have large wooded lots to name a few. These are established neighborhoods and I doubt you have driven many if any of these Craig. 
 If I were living in any of these neighborhoods the last thing I would want is a duplex, triplex, or other multi family type project in my neighborhood adding even more traffic into an already rural type traffic pattern.

As I said there are plenty of places already available to build in already that have not even been touched. Many of these homes are all that is left of the older housing stock that is left in Nashville. 
BTW I do think Jacob Cupin is a realtor as well. I like him, however there is a line in the council that you should not be a sponsor of a bill. I think the folks in the neighborhoods need to have a say and this is a referendum item and I will bet this is where it will be headed. It is not going to end well as this is a very controversial bill.

BTW your response to my Number 3 is absolutely ridiculous. Bring up the Justice center sounds like you’re one with the problem here. Council members need to be careful when they are realtors working with developers on bills to build more homes. That smacks as collusion in some people’s minds. Realtors sell homes for developers. Someone may just bring that up in the media if they put two and two together.

West Meade, Greens Hills, and some of these other hoods are not that walkable, they are just more desirable and that is my point, the developers want to build there and they can’t right now and they are masking a bill as something else to gain access for their means. This is not about the good of Nashville but about what is good for the developers and real estate broker’s pockets.

 

[Bos2Nash]

As an FYI, many of these changes are only applicable to the Urban Services District. While this is a very large swath of land, if a parcel is receiving urban services it should absolutely be subject to urban zoning approaches. Context is still important, but we should be moving closer to the intent of these bills OR maybe we start to roll back urban services into rural areas....

[PaulChinetti]

There are already so many duplexes, etc in all of those neighborhoods. The attached images of duplexes have been there since AT LEAST 2008.

It's not a style problem, because there are a million new extremely modern looking homes in Green Hills. 

So I don't understand the problem with any of this? Is it I got mine, so I don't want more housing built to drive down the cost of my home?

 

* Even these row of modern ones got sidewalks in front of them! Hot damn becoming more walkable. 

 

 

[Luvemtall]

This should erase any doubt, by definition ALL of METRO is fair game ! Hell all of the MSA is fair game IMO. Thats how urban density works, as I said above Nashville is in the big leagues now, the word rural shouldn’t even be used until your more then 35 miles away. Large and densely populated by definition, who would have thought! Its time to change the way things have been done, and start building for the future.

[smeagolsfree]

59 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

There are already so many duplexes, etc in all of those neighborhoods. The attached images of duplexes have been there since AT LEAST 2008.

It's not a style problem, because there are a million new extremely modern looking homes in Green Hills. 

So I don't understand the problem with any of this? Is it I got mine, so I don't want more housing built to drive down the cost of my home?

 

* Even these row of modern ones got sidewalks in front of them! Hot damn becoming more walkable. 

 

 

The problem is that this will be county wide. Some districts will not want this and I can understand this. It will change the character of some neighborhoods. What is good some is not always good for others. I do not know if you have ever driven most every nook and cranny of Davidson County, but I have.  The most rural parts of Joelton to Bellevue and Antioch to Madison. Mark drives them all the time too. The last thing Antioch wants is more density.

[PaulChinetti]

Agree to disagree on "neighborhood character", I suppose. 

People want cheaper housing, but some people don't want their neighborhood to change in the slightest, those are just two very divergent ideas. 

[Luvemtall]

4 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

Agree to disagree on "neighborhood character", I suppose. 

People want cheaper housing, but some people don't want their neighborhood to change in the slightest, those are just two very divergent ideas. 

Sounds like nimby’s to me, they got theirs so nobody else deserves to have any. I have driven most of the nooks and crannies and there’s potential for development most everywhere. Topography shouldn’t be a concern, as I’ve seen some major projects along the mountain ranges of the Rockies. It’s amazing what engineering and modern machinery can do, it’s the general mindset that is the problem.

[PaulChinetti]

I didn't want to say, it usually turns people off to a convo, but yes. 

If you live in Davidson County at this point, everything seems fair game at this point. 

[UTgrad09]

I say it over and over in group discussions -- county consolidation has been a blessing and a curse for Nashville. 

It was a blessing during the post WWII suburbanization in the sense that the city did not experience the mass population exodus that most American cities experienced. Like cities with mass annexation, Nashville was able to hide it's losses and post healthy gains. But doing this without having to annex also avoided some of the social and political pains that go with that. 

So post WWII Nashville looks like typical suburbia almost everywhere. And now the curse is that Nashville is trying to urbanize rapidly, and some of the people who laid roots down in these neighborhoods 30, 40, even 50 years ago aren't too thrilled about the direction of things. 

This isn't just Old Nashville vs. New Nashville. There are plenty of people in their 30s and 40s who move to these areas because they like what they are -- modest homes with space between you and your neighbors. Large trees and wooded areas. Room for the kids to play. Lawns and gardens to work on as you forget the everyday hustle and bustle of the city. 

I grew up in one of the neighborhoods in question here, down on the Williamson County border, but still in Urban Services. 

While some of these areas are *in* Urban Services, they certainly don't feel like it. Aside from trash/recycling service and street lights, there really isn't any urban infrastructure in place. Almost no sidewalks (unless you are on a highway), and a most of the streets have no shoulder or safety improvements to speak of (I know that can be said about a lot of neighborhoods, but there are also no plans to improve some of the roads, which is a big gripe for locals).

I know it's easy to dismiss all of this as entitled nimbyism, but having grown up in this type of area, I do understand some of their concerns. 

Of course, Nashville is a growing city and is constantly changing. Perhaps these types of neighborhoods don't have a long term future as Nashville urbanizes. But the people who live in these areas should have a voice in the matter, even if many of you disagree with them. 

Back to the original point I made -- consolidated Nashville is a blessing and a curse. This city is made up of many types of people living in many different types of housing. It's hard to come to any sort of consensus on things. 

I haven't really decided how I feel about the NEST bills. I think there are some good features, but I think it may need some fine tuning. I don't think it alone will do much for affordable housing, but it will certainly make more housing avaliable. 

 

**Personally, I think we should modify the USD/GSD model, adding a third layer, making it effectively Urban/Suburban/Rural, but that's a discussion for later. 

 

[PaulChinetti]

49 minutes ago, UTgrad09 said:

(I know that can be said about a lot of neighborhoods, but there are also no plans to improve some of the roads, which is a big gripe for locals).

Improvement wise, how do taxes work for infrastructure the farther you are from the core or the USD. I believe it takes city significantly longer to upgrade those areas because of the lower tax collection? Doesn’t it also end up  costing the city way more to maintain everything out there than the taxes they take in?

I posted a study from a similar sized city awhile ago but I’ll be damned if I can find it now  it discussed this point.  

*Im butchering what I’m trying to say I hope I’m getting my point across. 

[UTgrad09]

9 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

Improvement wise, how do taxes work for infrastructure the farther you are from the core or the USD. I believe it takes city significantly longer to upgrade those areas because of the lower tax collection? Doesn’t it also end up  costing the city way more to maintain everything out there than the taxes they take in?

I posted a study from a similar sized city awhile ago but I’ll be damned if I can find it now  it discussed this point.  

*Im butchering what I’m trying to say I hope I’m getting my point across. 

Some of these areas were added to the USD 40 years ago. The infrastructure cost was probably not so great then. 

It's also why I say they should split the USD. It doesn't make sense to provide the same level of services in the edge neighborhoods as you do in the core neighborhoods.