driveway restrictions vote postponed

[samagon]

basically, the ordinance would restrict the minimum width of 33' for a front loading driveway.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/houston-city-council-delays-vote-driveway-18376685.php

[Amlaham]

6 hours ago, samagon said:

basically, the ordinance would restrict the minimum width of 33' for a front loading driveway.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/houston-city-council-delays-vote-driveway-18376685.php

This would be a HUGE plus if it passes, although I have a feel it wont pass :(

[Houston19514]

I get the downside of streets full of driveways (although the negative impact on pedestrians could be at least party ameliorated by enforcing the law that bans blocking sidewalks). Just recognize that every additional regulation such as this adds to housing costs.

[editor]

On 9/21/2023 at 6:28 PM, Houston19514 said:

I get the downside of streets full of driveways (although the negative impact on pedestrians could be at least party ameliorated by enforcing the law that bans blocking sidewalks). Just recognize that every additional regulation such as this adds to housing costs.

The problem is that the "adds to housing costs" boogieman is brought up every time any new regulation is proposed, no matter how minor the cost.

How much would this add to the cost of a house?  50¢?  A dollar?  Ten dollars?  Nobody ever says.

Is the cost added to a single house more or less than the benefit delivered to the general public?

[Houston19514]

29 minutes ago, editor said:

The problem is that the "adds to housing costs" boogieman is brought up every time any new regulation is proposed, no matter how minor the cost.

How much would this add to the cost of a house?  50¢?  A dollar?  Ten dollars?  Nobody ever says.

Is the cost added to a single house more or less than the benefit delivered to the general public?

That balance of course is what needs to be carefully considered.  It's easy to say, well, it won't add much to the cost, so it will be fine.  It's not a boogieman. It's a very real consequence of regulations and must be taken into account. As I said, every time another regulation is imposed, it adds a little bit more to the cost until one day, seemingly all of the sudden, few people can afford housing. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Houston19514

[editor]

21 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

That balance of course is what needs to be carefully considered.  It's easy to say, well, it won't add much to the cost, so it will be fine.  It's not a boogieman. It's a very real consequence of regulations and must be taken into account. As I said, every time another regulation is imposed, it adds a little bit more to the cost until one day, seemingly all of the sudden, few people can afford housing. 

The same boogieman was raised when cities tried to mandate smoke detectors in apartment buildings.  They're only normal now because the insurance industry started raising rates on buildings that didn't have them.

It's the whole "internalize the profit, externalize the cost/risk" play all over again.  

If it costs a real estate developer an extra $10 to do something, is that cost passed on to the home buyer?  Absolutely.  If a real estate developer saves $10 doing something, is that savings passed on to the home buyer?  Absolutely not.  Let's not pretend that the real estate developers fighting this improvement are doing it out of the charity of their hearts.

The people who benefit from curb cuts every six feet isn't the people who live in the neighborhood.  It's the people building and selling the homes, who don't have to live with the consequences.  

[wilcal]

22 hours ago, editor said:

The problem is that the "adds to housing costs" boogieman is brought up every time any new regulation is proposed, no matter how minor the cost.

How much would this add to the cost of a house?  50¢?  A dollar?  Ten dollars?  Nobody ever says.

Is the cost added to a single house more or less than the benefit delivered to the general public?

Except that they will still be allowed to build 3 homes on a 5,000 sq ft lot with a shared driveway.

This would mostly prevent 50x100 ft lots from being divided into two 25x100s and each getting their own driveway.

Basically, the more affordable choice is still available. The more luxurious choice (a private driveway and more land) will become more restrictive. 

Also, we have a Livable Places thread! 

 

 

LP is much more than driveway restrictions! 

[Houston19514]

On 9/26/2023 at 9:05 AM, editor said:

The same boogieman was raised when cities tried to mandate smoke detectors in apartment buildings.  They're only normal now because the insurance industry started raising rates on buildings that didn't have them.

It's the whole "internalize the profit, externalize the cost/risk" play all over again.  

If it costs a real estate developer an extra $10 to do something, is that cost passed on to the home buyer?  Absolutely.  If a real estate developer saves $10 doing something, is that savings passed on to the home buyer?  Absolutely not.  Let's not pretend that the real estate developers fighting this improvement are doing it out of the charity of their hearts.

The people who benefit from curb cuts every six feet isn't the people who live in the neighborhood.  It's the people building and selling the homes, who don't have to live with the consequences.  

As I said, every additional regulation adds to the cost of housing.  Thanks for your support.