Friday, January 20, 2006
Cul de Sacs = Blight
The Supreme Court's Kelo decision found that cities did not have to consider neighborhoods to be blighted to condemn them and give the land to private developers. They only had to have a "plan" that would produce net benefits for the community.
However, some states and cities still have obsolete laws on the books requiring that neighborhoods be blighted before eminent domain could be used to take the land. So when developers wanted to redevelop a neighborhood in Norwood Ohio (a suburb of Cincinnati), the developers commissioned a study to prove the neighborhood was deteriorating.
The study found -- no surprise -- that it was deteriorating. Why? Because it had "faulty street arrangements," namely cul de sacs. Also, it has small front yards, businesses close to homes (mixed use is a sign of deterioration?), and "diversity of ownership," which would make it harder for the developer to get the land without eminent domain.
The developer wants to build offices, condos, chain stores, and a parking garage. I wonder how long it will be before someone decides these are deteriorating and wants to condemn them for urban revitalization?
However, some states and cities still have obsolete laws on the books requiring that neighborhoods be blighted before eminent domain could be used to take the land. So when developers wanted to redevelop a neighborhood in Norwood Ohio (a suburb of Cincinnati), the developers commissioned a study to prove the neighborhood was deteriorating.
The study found -- no surprise -- that it was deteriorating. Why? Because it had "faulty street arrangements," namely cul de sacs. Also, it has small front yards, businesses close to homes (mixed use is a sign of deterioration?), and "diversity of ownership," which would make it harder for the developer to get the land without eminent domain.
The developer wants to build offices, condos, chain stores, and a parking garage. I wonder how long it will be before someone decides these are deteriorating and wants to condemn them for urban revitalization?
Comments:
Good article. It goes to show you how aggressive real estate developers are becoming today in their need to radically alter neighborhoods for profit. Incredible.
It also shows that mixed use communities (condos, offices) generate more tax revenue than single family homes. It appears developers are finally seeing that building homes next to offices inceases the tax base because it allows those working to live in the same neighborhood without having to drive a motorcar. Such mixed use communites are valued.
It also shows that mixed use communities (condos, offices) generate more tax revenue than single family homes. It appears developers are finally seeing that building homes next to offices inceases the tax base because it allows those working to live in the same neighborhood without having to drive a motorcar. Such mixed use communites are valued.
You can't compare brand-new condos and offices with older homes and conclude that mixed-use communities in general generate more tax revenue than single-family homes. I have yet to see a city with a significant number of mixed-use developments that has not subsidized those developments with TIF and/or other subsidies. If they were truly valued, the subsidies would not be necessary.
Post a Comment
