Let’s spend our transit taxes on transit

[j_cuevas713]

12 minutes ago, __nevii said:

I also forgot to mention: I think quite a few of the Houston mayoral candidates (Gilbert Garcia and Robert Gallegos to name two) will help alot when it comes to transit, as they did have experience regarding local affairs. Of course, with SJL as the most well-known face in the race, she would overshadow others ... but I'm not sure her stances regarding transit, YIMBY urban development in general to know if she would be a detriment.

I was too young to know much of leadership under Annise Parker, whether she was a detriment regarding urban planning affairs.

I actually don't remember Parker's stance on much. And tbh I think SJL is going to win even though I completely agree with your point on the other two candidates. Whitmire is the only candidate that in my opinion is very moderate on everything. While he has a stance on public transit, it's a very basic outlook of simply getting people to work, school, etc. but I don't know what he believes in terms of expansion. He come's across like a guy that believes in roads first. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by j_cuevas713

[004n063]

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

It hasn't failed. The ONLY thing that is holding this city back in parking minimums and setbacks, but letting the market determine what things are built has been proven to work in this city. The problem is those restrictions I listed are limiting developers in meeting the design potential of what they want to develop because they have to account for one or both. You can already see what free market development is doing in EaDo with less restrictions. And to add to your point, cities with some of the most stringent zoning are actually loosening those restrictions. One of those cities is SF. My last visit some friends of mine, who are native to the area, were all excited because now you can build multifamily in single family neighborhoods. I was like "Houston has been doing that."

I wouldn't say that parking minimums and setback requirements are the only problems with Houston development. We were overdue for an urban growth boundary about 40 years ago. Of course, without endless exurban expansion, we probably would have wound up with more deed-restricted R1-esque neighborhoods in the city, and higher housing/property prices to boot.

On the other hand, anybody who doesn't factor the costs of car use and ownership (and/or transit/biking time) into their COL is kidding themselves, and a studier and closer-in boundary would have made it easier (politically, economically, and functionally) to improve transit. At the very least, it would have cut our VMT per capita.

But these are big and relatively pointless hypotheticals. The infuriating thing about getting rid of minimum parking and setback requirements is that it would cost the city nothing to enact, likely lead to more tax dollars per acre, and have no immediately radical impact on anyone's experience of the city, so the political lift can't be that high.

[editor]

1 hour ago, 004n063 said:

getting rid of minimum parking and setback requirements is that it would cost the city nothing to enact, likely lead to more tax dollars per acre, and have no immediately radical impact on anyone's experience of the city, so the political lift can't be that high.

You might be surprised.  Some groups are against any change at all.

I got a postcard in the mail from the Greater Houston Builders Association that was loaded with pearl-clutching hysterics trying to convince people that having better sidewalks will make neighborhoods more dangerous.  "Tell city hall to keep out streets safe!" it implores, clearly written by someone who's never walked on a sidewalk in Houston before.

[Houston19514]

4 minutes ago, editor said:

You might be surprised.  Some groups are against any change at all.

I got a postcard in the mail from the Greater Houston Builders Association that was loaded with pearl-clutching hysterics trying to convince people that having better sidewalks will make neighborhoods more dangerous.  "Tell city hall to keep out streets safe!" it implores, clearly written by someone who's never walked on a sidewalk in Houston before.

Would love to see that.  Any chance you can post a picture or pdf of the postcard?

[editor]

Just now, Houston19514 said:

Would love to see that.  Any chance you can post a picture or pdf of the postcard?

 

I love the part about "This Could be YOUR Street" 

Well, that's how most streets are in Houston already because people like the Greater Houston Builders Association insist that everyone needs multiple cars, and that public space should be used for storing private property.  If the GHBA was really concerned about dangerous streets, as illustrated, it would encourage the better sidewalks and shared driveways proposed by the city so that people will walk and not fill the streets with their dinosaur-burning farm machinery.

[j.33]

It has been wild hearing the public comments during the planning meetings and the most recent city council meeting. One man literally said "I went to the Hamptons last weekend and a child was run over by a car...it wasnt in a shared driveway, but I think it would happen way more in a shared driveway situation." 

I think the changes and updates to Ch 42 are great and wish people would understand that it really is less about restricting and more about allowing for more housing types to be built. The only thing it really is restricting is front loading driveways on certain lot dimensions.  

[j_cuevas713]

2 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I wouldn't say that parking minimums and setback requirements are the only problems with Houston development. We were overdue for an urban growth boundary about 40 years ago. Of course, without endless exurban expansion, we probably would have wound up with more deed-restricted R1-esque neighborhoods in the city, and higher housing/property prices to boot.

On the other hand, anybody who doesn't factor the costs of car use and ownership (and/or transit/biking time) into their COL is kidding themselves, and a studier and closer-in boundary would have made it easier (politically, economically, and functionally) to improve transit. At the very least, it would have cut our VMT per capita.

But these are big and relatively pointless hypotheticals. The infuriating thing about getting rid of minimum parking and setback requirements is that it would cost the city nothing to enact, likely lead to more tax dollars per acre, and have no immediately radical impact on anyone's experience of the city, so the political lift can't be that high.

I probably should have been smarter with my words. What I mean is that those 2 issues are some of the most important with the current layout of our city. I do agree though, I have no idea why a boundary wasn't better established. Houston at one time was a small dense city. What I've seen happen is people who don't live in Houston or live out of state think Houston is 600 square miles of sprawl but that's actually not the case. Much of the area is undeveloped land, another chunk is sprawl, and the other section is The Loop which is Houston proper. It would have been nice for the city to cut itself off at The Loop but it annexed a ton of land for tax revenue purposes. While I'm not a fan, it gives the city leverage with how it wants to utilize all of that land, like one massive real estate agency. 

[samagon]

well, since the city (thanks to the state) will have a much harder time annexing land for the sole purpose of raising the revenue from taxes, the only real option they have to increase tax revenue is to make land more valuable, and the only way to do that is to make the city more dense, and promote infill on the empty land.

[august948]

7 hours ago, samagon said:

well, since the city (thanks to the state) will have a much harder time annexing land for the sole purpose of raising the revenue from taxes, the only real option they have to increase tax revenue is to make land more valuable, and the only way to do that is to make the city more dense, and promote infill on the empty land.

That and raising water and sewer rates and tacking fees onto your coh water bill.

[__nevii]

On 6/28/2023 at 12:40 PM, 004n063 said:

But these are big and relatively pointless hypotheticals. The infuriating thing about getting rid of minimum parking and setback requirements is that it would cost the city nothing to enact, likely lead to more tax dollars per acre, and have no immediately radical impact on anyone's experience of the city, so the political lift can't be that high.

Yea, abolishment of those requirements could be done right away w/ the stroke of a pen: a complete wipeout of those rules even out to Kingwood and Clear Lake City. Even better, framing the entire thing as "market-based parking/setback methods" should soothe even the most "commiephobic" of the suburbanites.

[august948]

8 hours ago, __nevii said:

Yea, abolishment of those requirements could be done right away w/ the stroke of a pen: a complete wipeout of those rules even out to Kingwood and Clear Lake City. Even better, framing the entire thing as "market-based parking/setback methods" should soothe even the most "commiephobic" of the suburbanites.

And yet they don't.  So why is that?

[editor]

4 hours ago, august948 said:

And yet they don't.  So why is that?

Because elections cost money, and the people and companies that profit from sprawl and the status quo donate money to pay for the candidates to be elected.

[__nevii]

@august948 looks like an oppurtunity for coordination. Particularly the case with this sort of policy, which tends to be enacted via city council decision.

Edited July 2, 2023 by __nevii

[Brooklyn173]

More of a zoning proper story, but related to parking minimums etc. I've heard some (few) mention a form based zoning for Houstons future, but I doubt I'll be around when/if it comes.

For your reading pleasure.

https://www.timesunion.com/hudsonvalley/news/article/kingston-new-zoning-code-18274465.php