Posts Tagged ‘new homes’
Local Land-Use Matters Split November Ballot
The San Diego Union Tribune identified 17 key local land-use matters before California voters on Tuesday. After all the votes were cast, nine resulted in positive news for the building industry, while eight weren’t so great. See the rundown below.
Merced County Measure C: Voter Confirmation of Zoning Changes - Failed
Considered a slow growth initiative and known originally as the “Save Farmland Initiative,” Measure C would amend the county’s general plan to require voter approval whenever ten or more acres would be converted from agricultural or open space to residential use.
Yes 43.84%
No 56.16%
Land Weekly 3: New Lawns, New Species, New Priorities
What were the three biggest California land development stories of the past seven days? Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here. You’ll find the Big Three here, or you can follow LPALand on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:
Raking of Muck Slows Raking of New Lawns
Political wonks like the crew at LP&A love the craziness and drama that comes with election season. But it turns out that homebuyers just might not be so keen on it. According to Shea Homes CEO Bert Silva, political attack ads “just don’t put people in the mood to buy a new home.” Our fingers are cautiously crossed that today’s political battles will bring the beginnings of a path toward less regulation and greater economic certainty come November 3, and that should surely put those weary homebuyers – and homebuilders – in better spirits.
An Unhealthy Development
City planners in the Bay Area city of Richmond are putting the finishing touches on the town’s new general plan and hope to include a first-in-the-nation “wellness element” in the document, which will guide how new development is processed. Writes HealthyCal.org:
The new rules would require builders to show that residents have adequate access to healthy foods, medical services, public transit, affordable housing, recreation and open space, economic opportunity, safe neighborhoods, and environmentally sound, sustainable buildings.
Excuse us, but isn’t it the free market’s responsibility to provide residents with services like groceries (healthy or not), doctors and jobs? Isn’t it Richmond’s responsibility to make sure neighborhoods are safe? Aren’t homebuyers still free to choose whether to pay more for a recreation-rich neighborhood or less for one that’s not so well equipped? And ditto for the added price for “environmentally sound, sustainable buildings?” Whatever that means.
Richmond city planners need to realize that starry-eyed idealism comes at a cost. Unless it dies a welcome death, the “wellness element” of Richmond’s draft general plan will not make Richmond’s economy any healthier. It will make the city less attractive to developers, who are likely to take their business – and the revenue new development generates for cities – elsewhere.
