Sometimes I’ll write 3,000 words criticizing some proposed policy, but I think many times it just boils down to “I wish you would say what you think this will accomplish and walk through exactly how you think it will work.”
It seems almost as if our City Government is looking for ways to assure we citizens that they are doing some righteous things, like removing restrictive racial discriminatory covenants in deeds. As you pointed out, this discrimination is already illegal, so this announcement would have a "feel good" result. As for Public Health 3.0, I think this is a totally wrongheaded use of taxpayer money to hire a Public Health Strategist to identify things that affect people's health decisions. Many of them are welll-known, and the money could be better spent alleviating some of these barriers to maintaining good health, such as decent, affordable housing and health care, family supporting jobs, etc. That's my view. We need concrete help for our friends and neighbors, not a foray into the realm of esoteric conjecture.
If renouncing restrictive covenants is purely a symbolic gesture then we missed a huge opportunity, as a community, to discuss the harm racial covenants, red lining, and bias in property assessment and loan approval have caused.
There is a connection, a linkage from the restrictive covenants to our current exclusionary zoning that artificially restricts housing choices, density and availability.
If we are serious about becoming a more inclusive, diverse community we need to understand our history in order to allow for a different future.
Just to be clear, I think symbols can be very powerful. A street vendor in Tunisia has very little real power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi) and yet a purely symbolic gesture like setting himself on fire in the middle of the street managed to topple the government and cause the Arab Spring. Importantly though, he set himself on fire rather than give himself a paper cut and he did it in the middle of the street rather than his backyard.
What do you mean by "current exclusionary zoning" and is there an article or book that you think does a particularly good job explaining the linkages you mentioned in your second paragraph?
By the way, I meant to write some sort of book review on that missing middle housing book you recommended months ago, but I only got halfway through before I got distracted by other things. I'll try to finish it soon.
Exclusionary zoning was a natural progression to redlining. Zoning that sets min lot sizes, min dwelling sizes and min off street parking requirements all restrict who can build in our neighborhoods. Over 65% of our residential area is zoned for single family only. Duplexes, side by side townhomes, courtyard homes are all prohibited in the R-1 districts. Allowing smaller multi family housing in our neighborhoods would provide for “gently” increasing density, providing more housing options at a lower price point than a single family home.
Ben, there are numerous articles that discuss this connection and suggest different zoning strategies.
It seems almost as if our City Government is looking for ways to assure we citizens that they are doing some righteous things, like removing restrictive racial discriminatory covenants in deeds. As you pointed out, this discrimination is already illegal, so this announcement would have a "feel good" result. As for Public Health 3.0, I think this is a totally wrongheaded use of taxpayer money to hire a Public Health Strategist to identify things that affect people's health decisions. Many of them are welll-known, and the money could be better spent alleviating some of these barriers to maintaining good health, such as decent, affordable housing and health care, family supporting jobs, etc. That's my view. We need concrete help for our friends and neighbors, not a foray into the realm of esoteric conjecture.
If renouncing restrictive covenants is purely a symbolic gesture then we missed a huge opportunity, as a community, to discuss the harm racial covenants, red lining, and bias in property assessment and loan approval have caused.
There is a connection, a linkage from the restrictive covenants to our current exclusionary zoning that artificially restricts housing choices, density and availability.
If we are serious about becoming a more inclusive, diverse community we need to understand our history in order to allow for a different future.
Just to be clear, I think symbols can be very powerful. A street vendor in Tunisia has very little real power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi) and yet a purely symbolic gesture like setting himself on fire in the middle of the street managed to topple the government and cause the Arab Spring. Importantly though, he set himself on fire rather than give himself a paper cut and he did it in the middle of the street rather than his backyard.
What do you mean by "current exclusionary zoning" and is there an article or book that you think does a particularly good job explaining the linkages you mentioned in your second paragraph?
By the way, I meant to write some sort of book review on that missing middle housing book you recommended months ago, but I only got halfway through before I got distracted by other things. I'll try to finish it soon.
Exclusionary zoning was a natural progression to redlining. Zoning that sets min lot sizes, min dwelling sizes and min off street parking requirements all restrict who can build in our neighborhoods. Over 65% of our residential area is zoned for single family only. Duplexes, side by side townhomes, courtyard homes are all prohibited in the R-1 districts. Allowing smaller multi family housing in our neighborhoods would provide for “gently” increasing density, providing more housing options at a lower price point than a single family home.
Ben, there are numerous articles that discuss this connection and suggest different zoning strategies.
I will send you some links.