Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
Any attempt to allege corruption can be rebutted by the argument that every transit station gets a 200 foot T zone, period--a blanket rule that covers the whole city. So one can't assume that one particular clout-heavy firm is getting a better deal than another.
|
This wouldn't stop the Trib from determining that it was all planned via cronyism.
Quote:
And come to think of it, what's wrong with people suddenly profiting from owning property within 200 feet of a transit station? Heck, it's a good investment and it's about time it be treated as such! This sort of thing has happened all the time in American cities (ie people who owned land near future NYC subway stops made bank--and in Chicago's case the train stops have already been built so it's not nearly as bad) and it certainly isn't illegal. I would argue that such concerns as you've expressed are exactly what we should not allow to get in the way of the kind of aggressive policy-making that can finally prioritize transit in Chicago.
|
We're not talking about someone speculating that a new transit line will increase property nearby. We're talking about upzoning certain properties, drastically increasing their value (all developers care about in land valuation is price-per-FAR-foot) - but that increase in value comes only at expense of nearby properties that have tighter zoning restrictions. The upzoning wouldn't have inherent value if it were done universally, but it does have inherent value when done selectively, and in the short run that value is extracted from the nearby properties on which higher density would still be prohibited. The windfall on the investment would be redistributive, and a lot of people would find that troubling politically.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see increased density near transit, my only point is that the politics and economics of zoning are quite complicated. These concerns about the fairness value transfers via zoning may be moot if we all determine that the public good of having real transit-oriented development outweighs the negatives of redistributive gifts. But I wouldn't be so quick to brush aside the personal-level politics involved in such a move. Part of the point of zoning is that it shouldn't be changed all the time - and this is one of those reasons. This is why a comprehensive plan would be the ideal solution, I think - I would of course also support something similar to what you're proposing if it were a viable option, but I forsee it being a very tough political sell, not even getting into the stupid traffic/parking/shadows NIMBY bullcrap.
Quote:
I'd even go so far as to say that Aldermen and community groups that force land around CTA stops to be zoned to a low density are the real examples of unfair influence, not to mention unfair access to city resources that all Chicagoans are paying taxes to support.
|
I tend to agree - but that still doesn't change the fact that dramatically changing the zoning of a select group of properties would redistribute land values in the area. Such a TOD zoning proposal will ultimately have to be pursued carefully and subtly, though I do think such an effort is both warranted and possible. I'm just offering some critique/caution on the ideas being discussed.
Did you not like my "TOD Variance" proposal of basically allowing the existing zoning classifications to have more housing units, fewer cars, greater lot coverage, etc? Fair enough, it doesn't stir mens' blood...