Interesting commentary among three speakers. When suburbia became the rage, it was obvious the infrastructure and land assembly would raise questions to those who addressed big city development. The elasticity differs, space wise and finance wise. Market value, zoning laws put limits on what can be achieved. In the distant future, you want to hear Houston, we had a problem.
I really appreciated the conversation on the podcast. I live and follow Mesa planning policy initiatives, so one point that resonates with my critique on the Phoenix market is the difference between having a positive marginal and *recognize* the magnitude of the policy is insufficient to "close the gap." This is what I find frustrating. I support the pro-ADU Zoning regulation amendment, but if the planners use a back of the napkin assessment on the number of residential lots that are good fits for the more "liberating" regulations, and note that a small % actually benefit and know that a small % of that small % will actually be motivated to add a new home to their existing SFH property, we might be able to see all this process is slow and insufficient in their ambition to meet the magnitude of the problem. If we can package a "housing policy update" that is worth our time, then we don't have this opportunity cost issue by acting like the ADU zoning update is going to more than marginally lessen the housing crisis.
Atop of how insufficient the City was proceeding to respond to housing pressure, the state is helping my city move along with the ADU as a foregone conclusion (since the updated state statute doesn't give them any other option). ADUs and more is now not an option for my city to comply with... here's a memo from the City of Tucson on Arizona's batch of housing legislation that force city leader's hand.
Interesting commentary among three speakers. When suburbia became the rage, it was obvious the infrastructure and land assembly would raise questions to those who addressed big city development. The elasticity differs, space wise and finance wise. Market value, zoning laws put limits on what can be achieved. In the distant future, you want to hear Houston, we had a problem.
I really appreciated the conversation on the podcast. I live and follow Mesa planning policy initiatives, so one point that resonates with my critique on the Phoenix market is the difference between having a positive marginal and *recognize* the magnitude of the policy is insufficient to "close the gap." This is what I find frustrating. I support the pro-ADU Zoning regulation amendment, but if the planners use a back of the napkin assessment on the number of residential lots that are good fits for the more "liberating" regulations, and note that a small % actually benefit and know that a small % of that small % will actually be motivated to add a new home to their existing SFH property, we might be able to see all this process is slow and insufficient in their ambition to meet the magnitude of the problem. If we can package a "housing policy update" that is worth our time, then we don't have this opportunity cost issue by acting like the ADU zoning update is going to more than marginally lessen the housing crisis.
Atop of how insufficient the City was proceeding to respond to housing pressure, the state is helping my city move along with the ADU as a foregone conclusion (since the updated state statute doesn't give them any other option). ADUs and more is now not an option for my city to comply with... here's a memo from the City of Tucson on Arizona's batch of housing legislation that force city leader's hand.